Federal Court of Australia
"6
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G42 of 1980
GENERAL DIVISION
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE:
) )
BETWEEN: PETER HOWARD BARRAND Applicant
AND: ENDEAVOUR RESOURCES LIMITED Respondent.
Franki J. 19 June 1980
Sydney.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs
up to the conclusion of the proceedings on
Monday 9 June 1980.
3. No order is made as to costs of the proceedings
after Monday.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. G.42 of 1980
) GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: PETER HOWARD BARRAND
Applicant
AND: ENDEAVOUR RESOURCES LIMITED
Respondent
Coram: FRANKI J
19 June 1980.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On Friday 6 June 1980 an application was made to me in chambers at 5.30pm for an ex parte interim injunction under s.80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act"). The application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Graham John Cowley, solicitor for
the applicant.
A meeting of shareholders of Endeavour Resources Ltd, the respondent, was to be held in Melbourne at 3.30pm on the following Monday and one of the resolutions to be proposed sought the approval of the acquisition by a wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent of certain shares in a company called Bond Mining and Exploration Pty. Ltd. It appeared that this transaction
would result in the respondent indirectly controlling certain
shares in White Industries Ltd, part of whose assets were said to
be shares in a company called Ulan Coal Mines Ltd, whach apparently held certain reserves of steaming coal recoverable by open pit mining. There is no need to go into the facts alleged in any detail but, in substance, there appeared to be a difference between the content and value of those reserves of the coal as stated in a circular to shareholders which accompanied the notice of the meeting and as stated in a letter which a Mr White, chairman of White Industries Ltd, was said to have written to the chairman of directors of the respondent on Friday 6 June. The application before me was filed on 6 June. It was in the usual form and sought interlocutory relief both restraining the passing of the resolutions proposed and restraining the respondent in trade and commerce from engaging in conduct which
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate