Spotless decided per incuriam? - A contrary view

The article considers the implications of the decision of the High Court in Spotless Services Pty Ltd (1996) 141 ALR 92; 34 ATR 183. It argues in particular that the decision was made per incuriam.

A shareholder’s contractual right to a dividend and a company’s oppressive conduct in withholding dividend payments: Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd

Traditionally, a shareholder’s expectation of receiving a dividend has been limited by the discretion the board of directors has to recommend the appropriate amount of payment as a dividend. As a general rule, shareholders will only be entitled to a dividend after the dividend is declared (normally, at the general meeting), or when the actual date arrives for the dividend to be paid. Because courts were traditionally reluctant to interfere with the internal management of companies, the remedies available to shareholders to compel a company to declare a dividend were very limited. As a result, if the directors have decided to withhold dividend payment, courts will only make an order requiring dividends to be paid under very exceptional circumstances. In this article, the authors discuss the case of Sumiseki Materials Co Ltd v Wambo Coal Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 235, which is exceptional for the court’s recognition of a shareholder’s contractual right to a dividend. The article analyses the court’s approach, which found that withholding dividend payments was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct of the company. It also discusses the significance of shareh9olders entrenching their rights in a company’s constitution, irrespective of the fact that a company has a statutory right to alter its constitution by way of a special resolution.

Assessment of damages for property damage

In Gagner Pty t/as Indochine Café v Canturi Corporation Pty Ltd (2009) 262 ALR 691, the assessment of damages awarded for the rectification work to the premises of the respondent was in issue. The appellant operated a restaurant above the respondent’s jewellery store in Sydney. When the kitchen of the restaurant flooded, water escaped causing damage to the jewellery store’s fit-out. The escape of the water was held to be due to the negligence of persons for whom the appellant was vicariously liable. The trial judge awarded damages, measured by the amount required to return the premises as close as was possible to the condition prior to the flood damage as well as an allowance for interruption to the business for 10 days. The 10 day allowance reflected the number of days the store would have been closed for if it was to be returned to its previous condition. The evidence was that the flooding has only affected approximately 10% of the floor area of the store. However, instead of having work carried out to bring the premises back to its condition as before the water damage, the respondent closed the business for 29 working days for a complete internal refurbishment – at a cost substantially more than simple rectification. On appeal it was argued that the trial judge had assessed the damages incorrectly as by undertaking a complete refurbishment had the effect that the respondent did not suffer any loss as a consequence of the negligence in relation to the fit-out. It was asserted that the claim for damages was in the circumstances a claim for betterment. It was also argued that the damages should not include a component for GST. Campbell JA gave reasons, with Macfarlan JA and Sackville AJA agreeing.

Tip top result goes stale: ACCC-v- Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd(No 2)

Bread, its constituents, its methods of manufacture and its price and availability to consumers can claim to be the leitmotiv of competition law, both ancient and modern. The inelasticity of demand for such a staple food explains laws against monopolies being included in the eighteenth century BC Code of Hammurabi, why corn laws exercised the minds of the Gracchi brothers in second century B.C. Rome, and why ineffective regulation of the price of bread was seen as an important precipitator of revolutions in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the common law the early restraint of trade case, Mitchell v Reynolds saw a parish wide five year non-competition clause in a contract for the sale of a bakery upheld as reasonable. In the post-Shennan Anti-Trust Act (1890) United States, attempts by manufacturers of macaroni to change its constituents because of the prevailing high price of durm wheat were held in National Macaroni Manufacturers Association v FCT) to constitute price-fixing, an offence illegal per se under American anti-trust law.

Statutory protections from forfeiture of a leasehold estate following Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd

In Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd the Victorian Court of Appeal decided that termination of a lease under common law contractual principles following repudiation is an alternative to reliance upon an express forfeiture provision in the lease and that it is outside the sphere of statutory protections given against the enforcing of a forfeiture. The balance of authority supports the first aspect of the decision. This article focuses on the second aspect of it, which is a significant development in the law of leases. The article considers the implications of this decision for essential terms of clauses in leases, argues that common law termination for breach of essential terms should be subject to compliance with these statutory requirements and, as an alternative, suggests a way forward through appropriate law reform, considering whether the recent Victorian reform goes far enough.

Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd

In Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183 Applegarth J considered complaints made by the defendant about the approach the plaintiff had taken in its endeavour to comply with its disclosure obligation under r 211 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The judgment also provides an indication of the direction the court is taking in relation to disclosure and document management in matters involving large numbers of documents.

Open for Inspection? Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272

In Julstar Pty Ltd v Lynch Morgan Lawyers [2012] QDC 272 Dorney QC DCJ considered whether an applicant for an assessment of all or part of their costs under s 335 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (LPA) must provide grounds on which they dispute the amount of the costs charged or their liability to pay them. His Honour also made an order for inspection of the solicitor’s file, despite a claimed lien for unpaid fees.

A clear view of costs ‘of and incidental to’ : Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271

In Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271 Jackson J provided considered analysis of several aspects of costs law. His Honour regarded various orders which are commonly sought or made as reflecting practice that is inappropriate or unnecessary under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

Case note : Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd

A recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court highlights that merely having a policy in a workplace is not sufficient in itself – the policy must be implemented and followed if an employer wishes to establish that it is not in breach of its duty of care owed to employees. In Keegan v Sussan Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd an employee successfully sued in negligence for her psychiatric injury caused by her employer’s failure to follow its bullying and harassment policy.

Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...

Keeping clear on costs: Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd) [2014] QSC 106

In Geatches v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 106, a dispute arose in the context of an assessment of costs as to the meaning to be attributed to particular terms of settlement and discharge signed by the parties. The court was required to consider the implications of those documents, and of a subsequent consent order intended to reflect the agreed settlement. Recovery of costs - terms of settlement and discharge exclude recovery of costs against one party and require other party to pay costs of claim against it - whether only subsequent consent order should be construed - implications where costs were common and mixed costs - whether costs should be apportioned

Evidence in view: Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256

Rule 478 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(view by court) is silent as to the manner in which a court might be expected to exercise the discretion to order an inspection or demonstration under the rule and also as to the use which may be made of any inspection or demonstration ordered. The decision in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256 provides guidance on both matters. This case provides some guidance on the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion to order a view or demonstration