Webster (Trustee) v Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited

In the Federal Court of Australia, Webster (Trustee) brought a representative proceeding against Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited. The dispute centred on the formulation of representations within the context of units in a unit trust, and the validity of certain statements contained in the product disclosure statement. The case hinged on whether the directors' consent to these statements was properly obtained, and the extent to which sections 1013K, 1021L, and 1022B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) applied.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had adequately formulated the representations in question, particularly in relation to the statements in the product disclosure statement. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the directors' consent to these statements was legally sufficient and whether the plaintiff's claims were properly framed under the relevant sections of the Corporations Act. The defendants sought summary dismissal, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were deficient and should be dismissed outright.

The court declined to grant summary dismissal on the issue of consent, finding that the plaintiff had not fully addressed the consent question and would be given an opportunity to replead on this aspect. The court also decided to strike out the plaintiff's amended statement of claim but refused leave to replead in the form of the proposed amendments dated 2 June 2017. Instead, the plaintiff was permitted a further opportunity to replead, with the precise form to be the subject of a further application within 14 days. The court reserved costs and scheduled a further case management hearing to address any further applications from the plaintiff seeking leave to replead.

The orders of the court were that the defendants' application for summary dismissal be refused, the plaintiff's amended statement of claim be struck out, and the plaintiff's application seeking leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim be refused. The plaintiff was granted the opportunity to replead, subject to a further application for leave to replead within 14 days. The proceedings were listed for a further case management hearing on 15 September 2017.