Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
London City Equities Ltd v Penrice Soda Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 822 Citation: London City Equities Ltd v Penrice Soda Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 822
Parties: LONDON CITY EQUITIES LTD v PENRICE SODA HOLDINGS LTD
File number: NSD 1841 of 2010
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 25 July 2011
Corrigendum: 1 August 2011
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – Statutory inspection of company's books – categories of books
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 247A(1), 247A(3)
Date of hearing: Decided on the papers
Date of orders 25 July 2011
Date of last submissions: 19 July 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr JC Giles
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Norton Rose Australia
Counsel for the Defendant: Mr SA Goodman
Solicitor for the Defendant: Kelly & Co
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
London City Equities v Penrice Soda Holdings (No 2) [2011] FCA 822
CORRIGENDUM
1. Schedule A has been inserted at the end of the Orders below. I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.
Associate: Dated: 1 August 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1841 of 2010
BETWEEN: LONDON CITY EQUITIES LTD
Plaintiff
AND: PENRICE SODA HOLDINGS LTD
Defendant
JUDGE: ROBERTSON J DATE OF ORDER: 25 JULY 2011 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Pursuant to section 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): 1.1 Mr Peter Murray, the Chief Operating Officer of the plaintiff; 1.2 Mr John Plummer, the Chairman of the plaintiff; 1.3 Mr Rob Chenery, a director of the plaintiff; 1.4 the following solicitors: Mr Stephen Klotz, Mr Tom Porter and Ms Vivien Fung, all of Norton Rose Australia, solicitors for the plaintiff, and Mr Jeremy Giles of counsel; and 1.5 Mr Stuart Hamilton Cameron of K.S. Black & Co., Chartered Accountants are authorised, on the plaintiff's behalf, to inspect and make copies of the books of the defendant which are specified in Schedule A to these orders, with such books to be made available for inspection by no later than 22 August 2011. 2. The people authorised to inspect and make copies of certain books of the defendant pursuant to order 1 of these orders, shall only use the information they obtain during such inspection: 2.1 for the purpose of investigating and determining whether proceedings should be commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant or the directors of the defendant (or both) and for prosecuting those proceedings; or 2.2 for the purpose of investigating and determining whether an application for leave to bring proceedings in the name of the defendant against directors and officers (or former directors and officers) of the defendant should be commenced; and 2.3 if it is decided to commence proceedings in the name of the defendant, for the purpose of seeking leave to commence such proceedings and prosecuting such proceedings. All such copies are to be returned to the defendant in the event that such proceedings are not commenced within seven (7) months of the date of these orders, or at the conclusion of any such proceedings. 3. Each party is to bear its own costs. 4. Liberty is reserved to each party to apply, on five (5) days notice, for further orders and directions, whether in relation to the implementation and conduct of the inspection authorised by this order or otherwise.
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