Wood v Links Golf Tasmania Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Wood and Hetrel sought leave to appeal the outcome of the Derivative Proceeding on behalf of Links Golf Tasmania against Sattler and R. G. Sattler Nominees Pty Ltd. The applicants argued that the trial judge had erred in various respects and that the appeal was in the best interests of Links. The court had to determine whether the proposed appeal was in the best interests of Links, whether it raised a serious question to be tried, and whether the applicants were acting in good faith. The court found that the proposed appeal was not in the best interests of Links, as the applicants had not provided an undertaking to meet the costs of the appeal and any adverse costs orders. The applicants were not in a position to provide such an undertaking, and the court could not accept that it would be in the best interests of Links to proceed with the appeal without such an undertaking. The court also found that the proposed appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried and that the applicants were not acting in good faith. The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

The court held that the applicants must provide an undertaking to meet the costs of the appeal and any adverse costs orders, and that the court could not accept that it would be in the best interests of Links to proceed with the appeal without such an undertaking. The court found that the applicants had not provided such an undertaking, and that they were not in a position to provide it. The court held that the proposed appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried, as the applicants had not identified any error of law or fact that would warrant an appeal. The court also found that the applicants were not acting in good faith, as they had not acted diligently in pursuing the appeal and had acted contrary to the interests of Links. The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.