Lee v Lee

In Lee v Lee, Robert Lee and Helen Heard sought to challenge the transfer of shares in a plastic manufacturing business, High Duty Plastics Ltd (HDP), to their brother, Greg Lee. The applicants claimed that Greg Lee exerted undue influence, gained an unconscionable bargain, and breached his fiduciary duties when their parents executed deeds transferring shares to him. Greg Lee moved to strike out the proceeding on the grounds that it was barred by the Limitation Act 1950. Associate Judge Christiansen and Collins J both found that the proceeding was indeed barred by the statute of limitations.

Robert Lee, representing himself, sought leave to appeal Collins J's decision to the Court of Appeal. He argued that there were errors of fact and law in the earlier judgments, and that the principles governing strike-out applications were misapplied. Specifically, Robert Lee claimed that the 6 October 1997 deed was irrelevant, that the A shares were not transferred in 1997, and that the trust's accountants were unreliable witnesses.

Collins J found that the factual and legal issues Robert Lee sought to re-litigate had already been considered in two previous judgments, and that there was no realistic hope of benefit in further pursuing the matter. Collins J also concluded that the alleged errors of law were not significant enough to warrant examination by the Court of Appeal, and that Greg Lee should not be subjected to the additional costs and delay of a further appeal.

Robert Lee's application for leave to appeal was declined. He was also prohibited from filing any further submissions in the High Court without the prior leave of a Judge.