Tang v Bongreen

In the matter of Tang v Bongreen, the plaintiffs sought relief under the Corporations Act, seeking to convene a general meeting of the company's shareholders. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiffs' shareholdings were a sham, and that they had engaged in conduct that precluded them from seeking equitable relief. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court was required to consider whether the plaintiffs' shareholdings were genuine, whether the relief sought would preserve the status quo, and whether the plaintiffs' conduct precluded them from seeking relief.

The court considered the evidence presented and found that the plaintiffs' shareholdings were not a sham. The court also found that the relief sought would not change the status quo, but rather preserve it. The court considered the plaintiffs' complicity in the alleged sham and found that it did not preclude them from seeking relief under the Corporations Act. The court also found that the plaintiffs and defendants had entered into a binding agreement that the plaintiffs would not intervene in the management of the company, and that this agreement was not breached by the plaintiffs' application for relief.

The court granted the plaintiffs' application for relief, ordering that a general meeting of the company's shareholders be convened. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief under section 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act, which provides that a court may grant relief if it is just and equitable to do so. The court found that it was just and equitable to grant the plaintiffs' application, given the evidence presented and the binding agreement between the parties. The court made orders accordingly, directing the defendants to convene a general meeting of the company's shareholders.