Re Etrend Pty Limited; Pockett v Dean-Willcocks
Case
•
[2004] NSWSC 251
•2 April 2004
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re Etrend Pty Limited; Pockett v Dean-Willcocks [2004] NSWSC 251
[2004] NSWSC 251
2 April 2004
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Etrend Pty Limited, sought to discharge examination summonses and orders for production that were issued in the context of a deed of company arrangement. The summonses were part of litigation concerning a champertous litigation funding agreement, which was alleged to be outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The court had to determine whether the summonses and orders were part of the champertous agreement and if they were outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The case before the court was whether the summonses and orders for production, which were issued in the context of a deed of company arrangement, were part of a champertous litigation funding agreement and whether they were outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators.
The court found that the summonses and orders for production were not part of a champertous litigation funding agreement. The court further held that the summonses and orders for production were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were issued in good faith and for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators.
The court discharged the examination summonses and orders for production, holding that they were not part of a champertous litigation funding agreement and were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were issued in good faith and for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The court further held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the summonses and orders for production were necessary for the purposes of the deed of company arrangement.
The court found that the summonses and orders for production were not part of a champertous litigation funding agreement. The court further held that the summonses and orders for production were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were issued in good faith and for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators.
The court discharged the examination summonses and orders for production, holding that they were not part of a champertous litigation funding agreement and were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were issued in good faith and for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the deed's administrators. The court held that the summonses and orders for production were not outside the proper purpose of the deed's administrators. The court further held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the summonses and orders for production were necessary for the purposes of the deed of company arrangement.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Breach of Contract
-
Unconscionable Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games v Zhu
[2002] NSWCA 380
Saint v Macks No. Scgrg-95-1021 Judgment No. S264
[1999] SASC 264
Sandhurst Trustees Ltd v Harvey
[2004] SASC 157