| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS’ LIST
S ECI 2017 00222
RE JUNIOR ACADEMY ELC PTY LTD (ACN 136 704 697)
BETWEEN
| PETER URBAN | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| JUNIOR ACADEMY ELC PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE GLEN EIRA ROAD (249) UNIT TRUST) & ORS (according to the attached schedule) | Defendants |
AND
S CI 2017 04273
RE JUNIOR ACADEMY ELC PTY LTD (ACN 136 704 697)
BETWEEN
| BARCOCHVA (COCO) LAHMY & ORS (according to the attached schedule) | Plaintiffs |
| and | |
| JUNIOR ACADEMY ELC PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE GLEN EIRA ROAD (249) UNIT TRUST) & ORS (according to the attached schedule) | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | ROBSON J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4 and 5 March 2019 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 5 March 2019 Ex tempore |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Junior Academy ELC Pty Ltd (No 3) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 161 |
---
CORPORATIONS – Application under s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by a director of the defendant company for leave to bring proceedings in the name of the defendant company against a fellow director – Allegations of breach of duty as a director – Consideration of character and position of the applicant in the defendant company in deciding whether it is in the best interests of the company that the applicant be granted leave – Held that applicant should not be granted leave – Macralink Pty Ltd v Saris [2011] VSC 665 applied.
CORPORATIONS – Application to wind up the defendant company by the fellow director sought to be sued – Application adjourned to enable the relevant parties to consider their position.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| In proceeding S ECI 2017 00222: | ||
| For the Plaintiff | Mr M I Borsky QC with Mr G Kozminsky | Marsh & Maher Richmond Bennison |
| For the Defendant | Mr J W S Peters QC with Dr O Bigos | Jack Bock Lawyers |
| In proceeding S CI 2017 04273: | ||
| For the Plaintiffs | Mr J W S Peters QC with Dr O Bigos | Jack Bock Lawyers |
| For the Second to Fourth Defendants | Mr M I Borsky QC with Mr G Kozminsky | Marsh & Maher Richmond Bennison |
HIS HONOUR:
Derivative leave application
By summons dated 12 September 2017, Mr Urban applies pursuant to s 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’), that he be granted leave to bring a proceeding on behalf of and in the name of Junior Academy ELC Pty Ltd (formerly known as Coco’s Early Learning Centre Pty Ltd) (‘Junior Academy’) as trustee for the Glen Eira Road (249) Unit Trust (‘Glen Eira Road Unit Trust) against Mr and Mrs Lahmy, in the form set out in the draft statement of claim.[1]
[1] Exhibit ADSW 10 to the affidavit of Amy Dawn sworn 14 November 2017.
Section 236 of the Act provides for bringing, or intervening in, proceedings on behalf of a company, and states as follows:
(1)A person may bring proceedings on behalf of a company, or intervene in any proceedings to which…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Junior Academy ELC Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] VSC 161
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the character and position of the applicant within the company, as well as the broader interests of the company. The decision was influenced by the case of Macralink Pty Ltd v Saris, where the court had outlined the considerations for granting leave to bring proceedings in the name of a company. The court found that the applicant's position and actions did not align with the best interests of the company, and therefore, the applicant should not be granted leave to bring the proceedings. The court also noted the application to wind up the company by the respondent director and decided to adjourn this application to allow the relevant parties to consider their positions.
The final outcome of the case was that the applicant director was not granted leave to bring the proceedings against the respondent director, and the application to wind up the company was adjourned. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the applicant's role and actions within the company, and the broader implications for the company's interests. The court's reasoning and outcome were grounded in established legal principles and precedents, ensuring that the best interests of Junior Academy ELC Pty Ltd were protected in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.