The Court held that an oppression claim under s 233 of the Corporations Act brought by interlocutory process within existing winding up proceedings was not an abuse of process, notwithstanding that the factual basis for the claim was largely known at the time of the earlier winding up application. The Court found there were good reasons the oppression claim was not advanced earlier, including the urgency of the winding up application, the inability to know the consequences of the alleged misconduct until the business was sold, and the fact that the earlier compromise (appointment of a receiver) did not include releases or covenants not to sue. The decision confirms that where a prior compromise does not extend to preclude subsequent claims, and where the party had legitimate reasons for not advancing those claims earlier, the mere fact that the claims could have been raised does not render them abusive.
The full text is available to signed-in members.