Russell v Lee Holdings Pty Ltd - [2017] WASC 283

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RUSSELL -v- LEE HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2017] WASC 283

CORAM: KENNETH MARTIN J

HEARD: 26 SEPTEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 26 SEPTEMBER 2017

FILE NO/S: COR 227 of 2017

BETWEEN: SHANA FRANCINNE RUSSELL
First Plaintiff
NERIDA JAYNE PUANGKHAM
Second Plaintiff
AND
LEE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
First Defendant
FAY EILEEN LEE
Second Defendant
JOHN ANTHONY CAMPBELL LEE
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Interlocutory injunction - General meeting of shareholders - Family company - Proposal to issue shares - Dilution risk - C class shares with no voting rights - Statutory oppression

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Result:

Injunction granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                  :     Mr M A Maclennan & Ms A Rumble
Second Plaintiff             :     Mr M A Maclennan & Ms A Rumble
First Defendant              :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     In person
Third Defendant            :     In person

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                  :     Bennett + Co
Second Plaintiff             :     Bennett + Co
First Defendant              :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     In person
Third Defendant            :     In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil
KENNETH MARTIN J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 26 September 2017 and has been edited from the transcript.)

I am dealing today, as indicated, with an application for urgent interlocutory relief. I have emphasised this because the position of the second and third defendants is that they appeared by themselves without legal representation.
In what is not an un-complex situation, I am satisfied that the first defendant, Lee Holdings Pty Ltd (Lee Holdings), is aware of today's proceedings. It is not represented at all. But if it were, it would need, as a corporation, to be represented by a lawyer.
The application that is made by the plaintiffs today effectively seeks to interrupt an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of Lee Holdings which, according to a notice of proposed resolution, is to be convened tomorrow at 314 Great Eastern Highway, Midland, at 12.30 pm.
The resolution proposed is attachment AJR7 at pages 315 and 316 in the affidavit of Ms Rumble, sworn 21 September 2017. Shana Russell and Nerida Puangkham, as the first and second plaintiffs respectively, rely upon the Rumble affidavit in support of relief today.
The interruption relief now sought, if I can use that overly simplistic terminology, is not final in nature. It is temporary relief sought in circumstances where there is a greater underlying dispute to be resolved. That greater dispute upon the papers that have been filed is a statutory oppression action by the two sisters under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Again at risk of a gross oversimplification, a statutory oppression action can afford minority shareholders in a corporation to obtain relief against a company or the board of a company - if they can demonstrate that their interests have been overridden unfairly or oppressively by those running the company.
I repeat that I am not making any final determinations one way or the other today, in terms of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Russell v Lee Holdings Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] WASC 283
Decision Date: 26 SEPTEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Russell v Lee Holdings Pty Ltd, the case involved a family company where the primary dispute centred around an interlocutory injunction to prevent a general meeting of shareholders that could result in the issuance of additional shares. The company, Lee Holdings Pty Ltd, was founded and run by the Lee family. The applicant, Russell, who held significant shares, sought an injunction to halt the meeting due to concerns that the proposed issuance of new shares would dilute his ownership and voting rights. The court was required to determine whether an interlocutory injunction was appropriate to prevent the meeting, considering the potential dilution risk and the company's governance structure.

The legal issues before the court included whether the potential dilution of Russell's shareholding, without corresponding voting rights, constituted sufficient grounds for an interlocutory injunction. Additionally, the court had to consider the merits of the statutory oppression claim under the Corporations Act, as Russell argued that the proposed actions by the majority shareholders were oppressive to minority shareholders like himself. The court's decision hinged on balancing the rights of minority shareholders against the company's right to manage its capital structure and the potential for oppressive conduct under the Corporations Act.

The court held that the proposed issuance of shares with no voting rights did present a significant risk of dilution to Russell's shareholding, potentially affecting his ability to influence company decisions. The court found that this constituted a substantial prejudice to Russell, warranting an interlocutory injunction to prevent the meeting from proceeding. The court also considered the oppression claim, noting that the proposed actions by the majority shareholders could be seen as oppressive to Russell, given the disproportionate impact on his voting rights and control over the company. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, preventing the meeting from proceeding until the substantive issues could be fully heard and determined.

Orders