G.W Glenn Road Transport Pty Ltd (In liq) v Glenn G.W & E. [1995] FCA 443

CATCHWORDS CORPORATIONS - management and administration - fiduciary position of directors - whether breach of fiduciary duty of directors - liability of directors for breach. Australian Growth Resources Corporation Pty Ltd v Van Reesema & Ors (1988) 6 ACLC 529 Kinsela v Russell Kinsela Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1986) 4 NSWLR 722 G W GLENN ROAD TRANSPORT PTY LTD (in liq) v GREGORY WARREN GLENN and ENA GLENN NO NG 3400 OF 1993 R D NICHOLSON J SYDNEY 2 JUNE 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO NG 3400 OF 1993 B E T W E E N: G W GLENN ROAD TRANSPORT PTY LTD (In Liq) Applicant and G W GLENN First Respondent and ENA GLENN Second Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: R D NICHOLSON J DATE OF ORDER: 2 JUNE 1995 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application against the first respondent be allowed. 2. The application against the second respondent be dismissed. 3. The first respondent pay the applicant (a) the sum of $137,520 (b) interest thereon from 1 July 1991 at the rate fixed in annexure J to the Rules of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

4. The first respondent pay the applicant's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO NG 3400 OF 1993 B E T W E E N G W GLENN ROAD TRANSPORT PTY LTD (In Liq) Applicant and G W GLENN First Respondent and ENA GLENN Second Respondent CORAM: R D NICHOLSON J DATE: 2 JUNE 1995 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT R D NICHOLSON J The applicant seeks a declaration that the respondents in purporting to forgive a debt owed by the first respondent to the applicant in the sum of $117,935 on or about 30 June 1991 acted in breach of duties owed by them to the applicant pursuant to s232(6) of the Corporations Law and acted in breach of their fiduciary obligations to the applicant to act at all times in good faith and for the benefit of the applicant. Although that is the way in which the application was brought, it is now submitted, correctly, that it is not appropriate for a declaration to be sought pursuant to s232(6) inasmuch as at the relevant date there was not a law which would sustain an order for compensation if such a declaration was made. Accordingly, the application is pressed only in respect of its second limb.