Zipside Pty Ltd as Trustee for Glentern Property Trust & Ors Anscor Pty Ltd as Trustee for Wilson Pension Fund

COURT OF APPEAL [2005] QCA 140

McMURDO P

Appeal No 2910 of 2004

ZIPSIDE PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR First Respondent/
GLENTERN PROPERTY TRUST First Plaintiff

and

AUSTRALIA-PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTY LTD Second Respondent/
Second Plaintiff
and

MANBURY PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR Third Respondent/
WILSON PENSION FUND Third Plaintiff

and

ANSCOR PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF First Appellant/
ANZCORP DISCRETIONARY TRUST First Defendant

and

ROBERT EDWARD CORBETT Second Appellant/Second Defendant

and

ANNE SHIRLEY CORBETT Third Appellant/Third Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/04/2005

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: I order that the appeals brought by the second and third appellants be struck out with costs to be assessed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zipside Pty Ltd, as trustee for Glentern Property Trust, and Anscor Pty Ltd, as trustee for Wilson Pension Fund, filed an appeal against the decision made by the trial judge in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute involved the ownership and control of certain shares in Australia-Pacific Holdings Pty Ltd, which had previously been owned by the Corbetts, the appellants in this case. The trial judge had found that the appellants had breached their fiduciary duties and ordered that certain shares be transferred to the respondents.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had correctly determined that the appellants had breached their fiduciary duties and whether the orders made by the trial judge were appropriate. The appellants argued that the trial judge had erred in finding that they had breached their fiduciary duties and that the orders made by the trial judge were excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly determined that the appellants had breached their fiduciary duties and that the orders made by the trial judge were appropriate. The Court of Appeal found that the appellants had failed to act in the best interests of the respondents and had instead acted in their own interests. The Court of Appeal also found that the orders made by the trial judge were necessary to ensure that the respondents were compensated for the losses they had suffered as a result of the appellants' breaches of fiduciary duty. The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants' argument that the orders made by the trial judge were excessive, finding that they were reasonable and proportionate to the breaches of fiduciary duty committed by the appellants.

The Court of Appeal struck out the appeals brought by the second and third appellants with costs to be assessed. The Court of Appeal also confirmed the orders made by the trial judge, which required the appellants to transfer certain shares to the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established