JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 February & 2 March 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Hollen Australia Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 95

---

CORPORATIONS – Oppression proceedings under s 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 – Conduct oppressive to the plaintiffs established – Breach of a director’s duties not necessarily oppressive conduct – Commercial unfairness central to making out oppressive conduct - Considerations in granting relief under s 233 of the Act – Objectives of relief - Relief intended to compensate plaintiffs for consequences of oppressive conduct – Whether winding up appropriate remedy – Winding up of solvent company to be avoided if possible – Defendant ordered to purchase plaintiffs’ shares – ss 232, 233 and 436 of the Corporations Act 2001.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Proceedings not otherwise within jurisdiction of a Master referred by Judge of the Trial Division to a Master under r 16 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003 – Associate Judge (formerly the Master to whom proceeding referred) determines proceedings - Plaintiffs seek leave to appeal to a Judge of the Trial Division – Leave at discretion of Judge of the Trial Division – Consideration of what constitutes decision possibly affected by error under r 16.5(3) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003 – Consideration of matters relevant to exercise of discretion to grant leave to appeal - Leave granted to plaintiffs to appeal - Whether appeal lies to a Judge of the Trial Division or the Court of Appeal – Appeal by a re-hearing de novo of whole of proceeding – rr 16.5(1),(2) and (3) of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003; rr 77.06 and 77.07 of Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 and s 17(3) of Supreme Court Act 1986.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	J Langmead SC with K. Baker	Challenge Legal
For the Defendant	I. Upjohn	D E Jones & Associates

Aqua-Max Pty Ltd v MT Associates Pty Ltd (2001) 3 VR 473

Australian Securities Commission v Lucas (1992) 36 FCR 165

Re Back 2 Bay 6 Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 614

Re Bodaibo Pty Ltd (1992) 6 ACSR 509

Re Bright Pine Mills Pty Ltd [1969] VR 1002

Campbell v BackOffice Investments Pty Ltd (2008) 66 ACSR 359

Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178

Re a Company (1986) 2 BCC 99

Re Cumana Ltd [1986] BCLC 430

Cumberland Holdings Ltd v Washington H Soul Pattinson & Co Ltd (1977) 13 ALR 561

Dwyer v Calco Timbers Pty Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 124

Elder v Elder & Watson [1952] SC 49

Foody v Horewood (2003) VSC 347

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Hollen Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Hollen Australia Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 95
Case: [2009] VSC 95
Decision Date: 23 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Hollen Australia Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs, shareholders in the defendant company, brought proceedings under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001, alleging that the conduct of the company’s directors was oppressive towards them. The dispute centred on whether the conduct of the directors amounted to oppressive behaviour, and if so, what relief was appropriate under section 233 of the Act. The proceedings were initially referred to a Master by a Judge of the Trial Division under rule 16 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 2003, and subsequently determined by an Associate Judge. The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the decision to a Judge of the Trial Division, raising questions about the appropriate forum for the appeal and the criteria for granting leave.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of oppressive conduct under the Corporations Act and the appropriate relief for such conduct. The court had to determine whether the conduct of the directors constituted oppressive behaviour, focusing on whether the commercial unfairness to the plaintiffs was a central element. Additionally, the court considered the objectives of relief under section 233, particularly whether winding up the solvent company was an appropriate remedy and if an order for the defendant to purchase the plaintiffs’ shares was more suitable. The plaintiffs also raised procedural issues concerning the referral of proceedings to a Master and the exercise of discretion in granting leave to appeal.

The court found that the conduct of the directors was indeed oppressive, as it was commercially unfair to the plaintiffs. It was noted that not every breach of a director's duties constituted oppressive conduct, but the commercial unfairness was a key factor. The court emphasised that relief under section 233 should aim to compensate the plaintiffs for the consequences of the oppressive conduct. It was determined that winding up the company should be avoided if possible, and an order for the defendant to purchase the plaintiffs' shares was deemed appropriate. The procedural issues were resolved by granting the plaintiffs leave to appeal to a Judge of the Trial Division, considering the nature of the decision possibly affected by error and the relevant factors in exercising the discretion to grant leave.

The final orders included the determination that the conduct of the directors was oppressive, and the appropriate relief was for the defendant company to purchase the plaintiffs' shares. The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to appeal to a Judge of the Trial Division, clarifying the procedural pathway for the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of commercial fairness in determining oppressive conduct and the tailored relief necessary to address the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders