The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 13)

The University of Western Australia was involved in litigation against Dr Bruce Gray, a former Professor of Medicine and Head of the Department of Surgery, and two entities associated with him: Sirtex, a public company that holds intellectual property rights, and CRI, which acquired intellectual property rights in the DOX-Sphere invention from Dr Gray and subsequently assigned them to Sirtex. The University sought a declaration and an order that CRI transfer certain shares and options in Sirtex to it. The court had previously restrained CRI from dealing in its shares in Sirtex and from exercising options related to that company. Following a mediation, an agreement was reached for CRI to transfer its Sirtex shares into a trust, the Cancer Research Trust. However, concerns arose about the legal capacity of CRI's Board, leading to a new Board being appointed. This development raised concerns about the potential for the affairs of CRI in the litigation to be conducted in pursuit of interests unrelated to its charitable purposes. Consequently, the University sought enforcement of the agreement, and a receiver was appointed to investigate the enforceability of the agreement.

The court was required to decide whether to grant interlocutory relief to Dr Gray and Sirtex, which would have implications for the enforcement of the settlement agreement between the University and CRI. The court also had to consider whether the governance issues affecting CRI warranted the appointment of a receiver to investigate the enforceability of the agreement. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the new Board of CRI was legally capable of managing the company's affairs in the litigation and whether the interests of the University and CRI were being adequately represented.

The court found that it should not grant the interlocutory relief sought by Dr Gray and Sirtex, as it was not satisfied with the application. The motions were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the University and CRI. The court expressed concerns about the governance issues affecting CRI and the potential for the interests of the University and CRI to be compromised. The appointment of a receiver was deemed necessary to investigate the enforceability of the agreement and to ensure that the interests of the parties were adequately protected. The court found that the new Board of CRI was not legally capable of managing the company's affairs in the litigation, and the interests of the University and CRI were not adequately represented.

The court dismissed the motions filed by the respondents and ordered that the first respondent pay the applicant's and the third respondent's costs of the motion, and that the second respondent pay the applicant's and the third respondent's costs of the motion. The court also appointed a receiver to investigate the enforceability of the agreement and to ensure that the interests of the parties were adequately protected.