Vigliaroni v Concrete Precast Systems Pty Ltd - [2009] VSC 253

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT

LIST A
No. 7126 of 2009

IN THE MATTER:

CONCRETE PRECAST SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 082 330 710)

IVAN VIGLIARONI	Plaintiff
V
CONCRETE PRECAST SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 082 330 710)	First Defendant
NICHOLAS JOSEPH GARGARO	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	DAVIES J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 June 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Vigliaroni v Concrete Precast Systems Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 253

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to bring proceedings on behalf of a company – Whether acting in good faith – Whether proposed proceeding is in the best interests of the company – Whether serious issue to be tried – ss 236 and 237 Corporations Act 2001.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A Monichino with Ms Priskich	Goldman Legal
For the Defendants	Mr R Randall with Mr A Segal	Harrick Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The applicant (“Vigliaroni”) seeks leave to bring proceedings on behalf of Concrete Precast Systems Pty Ltd (“CPS”) under ss.236 and 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Act”). Vigliaroni is a director of CPS. The proposed action is against the second defendant (“Gargaro”), who is the other director of CPS, and CPS Construction Group Pty Ltd (“CPSCG”), a company owned and controlled by Gargaro, to seek injunctive and other equitable relief and damages for contraventions of various sections of the Act arising out of the entry by CPS into a service agreement with CPSCG. The basis of the claim against Gargaro is that he breached his fiduciary duties to CPS and statutory duties by causing CPS to enter into the service agreement and to pay excessive service fees to CPSCG. The basis of the claim against CPSCG is that it knowingly participated in Gargaro’s breaches of fiduciary duty and was knowingly concerned in Gargaro’s statutory contraventions.

I am of the opinion that leave should be granted.

Criteria for the Grant of Leave

A person referred to in s.236(1)(a) of the Act may apply to the Court for leave to bring proceedings. On such an application, the Court must grant leave if the criteria set out in s.237(2) of the Act are satisfied.

Section 236(1) provides:

(1)A person may bring proceedings on behalf of a company, or intervene in any proceedings to which the company is a party for the purpose of taking responsibility on behalf of the company for those proceedings, or for a particular step in those proceedings (for example, compromising or settling them), if:
(a) the person is:
(i)a member, former member, or person entitled to be registered as a member, of the company or of a related body corporate; or

(ii) an officer or former officer of the company; and

(b) the person is acting with leave granted under section 237.

Section 237(1) provides that:

(1)A person referred to in paragraph 236(1)(a) may apply to…

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 Vigliaroni v Concrete Precast Systems 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: [2009] VSC 253
Decision Date: 25 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter sought leave to bring proceedings on behalf of a company, Concrete Precast Systems Pty Ltd, against its directors and a related company. The dispute arose from allegations of improper conduct in the management and operation of the company, including breaches of director's duties and mismanagement. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the applicant was acting in good faith as required under section 236 of the Corporations Act 2001. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the proposed proceedings were in the best interests of the company, as stipulated by section 237. The court also had to assess whether there was a serious issue to be tried that warranted the intervention of the court.

In evaluating these issues, the court found that the applicant had acted in good faith by seeking to rectify the alleged mismanagement and to protect the interests of the company and its shareholders. The court determined that the proposed proceedings were indeed in the best interests of the company, as they aimed to address significant governance and operational issues. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was a serious issue to be tried, given the substantial allegations of misconduct and mismanagement.

The court granted the application for leave, allowing the applicant to proceed with the litigation on behalf of Concrete Precast Systems Pty Ltd. This decision enabled the company to seek redress and ensure proper governance and management practices moving forward.

Orders