Talbot v NRMA Limited

[2000] NSWSC 887

Reported Decision: 50 NSWLR 301

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:	TALBOT V. NRMA LIMITED [2000] NSWSC 887
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Equity Division
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2942/00
HEARING DATE(S):	12/07/00
JUDGMENT DATE:	12 July 2000
PARTIES :	Richard Talbot - plaintiff NRMA Limited - defendant
JUDGMENT OF:	Hodgson CJinEq at 1

COUNSEL :	B. Camilleri for plaintiff R. McDougall QC/R. McHugh for defendant
SOLICITORS:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Sydney for plaintiff Camilleri, Sydney for defendant
CATCHWORDS:	CORPORATIONS - Directors - Reimbursement of expenses - Proceedings brought by one director against company - In what circumstances entitled to payment of costs by company
LEGISLATION CITED:	Corporations Law ss.198A, 199A
DECISION:	Note: This judgment is supplementary to judgment of 3 July 2000. See end of judgment for decision/orders

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

CORAM: HODGSON, CJ in Eq.

Wednesday 12th July 2000

NO. 2942 OF 2000
TALBOT V. NRMA LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 In this matter, Mr. McDougall for NRMA seeks an order that the issues be defined by pleadings. He submits that this is necessary to define the issues still outstanding following my earlier judgment, and to clearly define the factual issues. He also raised the question whether there should be, as originally proposed, an order for separate determination and orders made pursuant to it determining particulars issues. He submitted that it was desirable that matters decided in my earlier judgment not be re-visited. 2 I did originally contemplate making orders for separate determination, but having regard to the quick resolution of the matter in the Court of Appeal, and the desirability of an early final hearing of the whole matter, I now think the better course is just to treat myself as part-heard, and to proceed to an early final hearing, without making orders separately arising from my first decision. 3 In the remainder of the hearing, I will in general terms not permit re-argument of matters decided in my first judgment. However, I am presently of the view that the way I dealt with s.198A of the Corporations Law in the first judgment was incorrect, and that matter can be re-argued. It will also be necessary to look in more detail at the effect of s.199A of the Corporations Law. 4 I am not persuaded, however, that it is necessary to have pleadings. I think the issues do appear with sufficient clarity from the summons and cross-claim, and from my earlier judgment. I propose to tentatively appoint 30th and 31st August 2000 for the final hearing, and to give directions with a view to ensuring that the matter is ready for hearing then. 5 I order that any additional evidence to be relied on by the plaintiff be filed and served on or before 26th July 2000, and that by the same date, the plaintiff make available, for inspection by the defendant, all documents relating to instructions for advice and giving of advice concerning the intervention in the proceedings before Justice Santow, and the bringing of the application to the Court of Appeal concerning Justice Santow’s decision. 6 I direct that any further evidence to be relied on by NRMA be filed and served on or before 9th August 2000. 7 I list the matter for further mention before me at 9.30am on 15th August 2000. 8 I give leave to either party to approach my Associate for an earlier mention date, with one day’s notice to be given to the other side.

**********

Last Modified: 09/27/2000