Turner v Richards

Case [2025] NSWCA 83


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Turner v Richards [2025] NSWCA 83
Hearing dates: 26 March 2025
Date of orders: 1 May 2025
Decision date: 01 May 2025
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Payne JA at [2];
Adamson JA at [91]
Decision:

(1)   Leave to appeal granted.

(2)   The draft notice of appeal found at Tab 3 of the White Folder stand as the notice of appeal.

(3)   Appeal dismissed.

(4)   Applicant to pay the first and second respondent’s costs.

Catchwords:

CORPORATIONS — Directors and officers — Appointment, removal and retirement of directors — Whether director was validly appointed — where director appointed by purported exercise of casting vote of board chairperson — whether chairperson validly appointed by earlier agreement allegedly made during conversation — where primary judge not persuaded that director was validly appointed by earlier agreement made during conversation

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act1995 (NSW) s 136

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) ss 75A, 103

Cases Cited:

Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1

Camenzuli v Hawke [2022] NSWSC 168

ET-China.com International Holdings Ltd v Cheung [2021] NSWCA 24

Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC (Comm) 3560

Gosford Christian School Ltd v Totonjian (2006) 201 FLR 424; [2006] NSWSC 725

Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 810

John Holland Pty Ltd v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 451

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28

Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403

Re Colorado Products Pty Ltd (in prov liq) [2014] NSWSC 789

Re Consolidated Nickel Mines Ltd [1914] 1 Ch 883

Singh v Singh; Flora t/as Flora Constructions v Budget Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 386

Tjiong v Chang [2025] NSWCA 25

Varma v Varma [2010] NSWSC 786

Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kieran Turner (applicant)
Joanne Richards (first respondent)
Bernice Hooker (second respondent)
Bernley Corporation Pty Ltd (third respondent)
Heartland Group Pty Ltd (fourth respondent)
Boyded Industries Pty Ltd (fifth respondent)
HMG Parts Pty Ltd (sixth respondent)
Heartland Motors Pty Ltd (seventh respondent)
Heartland Blacktown Pty Ltd (eighth respondent)
Heartland Penrith Pty Ltd (ninth respondent)
Chicago Properties Pty Ltd (tenth respondent)
T S Management Pty Ltd (eleventh respondent)
BGW Nominees Pty Ltd (twelfth respondent)
Rossfield Nominees (A.C.T.) Pty Ltd (thirteenth respondent)
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (fourteenth respondent)
Anthony Turner (fifteenth respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Izzo SC / T Boyle (applicant)
S Robertson SC / A R Langshaw (first and second respondent)

Solicitors:
McCabes (applicant)
MinterEllison (first and second respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/338525
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Equity – Corporations List
Citation:

[2024] NSWSC 875

Date of Decision:
19 July 2024
Before:
Black J
File Number(s):
2024/205160

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Anthony Turner (“AT”) was purportedly appointed as a director of various companies…

Continue reading Turner v Richards

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Turner v Richards [2025] NSWCA 83
Case
[2025] NSWCA 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Turner was the applicant and Richards was the first respondent, with the second respondent being a company. The dispute concerned the validity of Turner's appointment as a director of the company. The primary judge had found that Turner was not validly appointed by an earlier agreement allegedly made during a conversation. Turner's appointment was subsequently made by the purported exercise of the casting vote of the board chairperson, raising the question of whether the chairperson themselves had been validly appointed. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Turner had been validly appointed as a director of the company. This involved considering whether the chairperson, whose casting vote was used to appoint Turner, had been validly appointed to that position. The underlying issue was the validity of an agreement allegedly made during a conversation that would have appointed the chairperson.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's finding that the alleged agreement made during a conversation was not sufficiently persuasive to establish the valid appointment of the chairperson. Consequently, the chairperson lacked the authority to exercise a casting vote, rendering Turner's appointment as a director invalid. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal. Leave to appeal was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Leave to appeal granted.

(2) The draft notice of appeal found at Tab 3 of the White Folder stand as the notice of appeal.

(3) Appeal dismissed.

(4) Applicant to pay the first and second respondent’s costs.

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.