Cassegrain v Cassegrain

[2006] NSWCA 39

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Corporations
2. › Members' remedies
3. › Oppression
4. › Orders under s 233(1)(j) Corporations Act 2001
5. › Costs indemnity order requiring director to indemnify company
6. › Whether director who caused company to oppose winding up despite inevitability acted oppressively
7. › Whether indemnity order more comprehensive than costs order under s 76 Supreme Court Act 1970
8. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 232, 233(1)(j)
1. Appeal
2. › Right of appeal
3. › Whether appeal as of right or by leave
4. › Whether indemnity order under Corporations Act s 233 is order 'as to costs only' within s 101(2)(c) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
5. › Held not to apply to costs indemnity orders made under Corporations Act s 233
6. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(c)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Extension of time to appeal
3. › Relevant considerations
4. › Reasons for delay
5. › Prejudice to respondent
6. › Prospects of success of proposed appeal
7. › Whether extension should be granted

Quick Take

An indemnity order made under s 233(1)(j) of the Corporations Act 2001 on the basis of findings of oppression under s 232 is not an order 'as to costs only' within s 101(2)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), and an appeal lies as of right. The relief available under s 233(1)(j) is more comprehensive than a Bullock order under s 76, as it can reach expenses incurred by the company beyond party-and-party costs. An applicant is not precluded from invoking ss 232-233 merely because s 76 may provide an alternative route.