Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Healey v Rubynet Pty Ltd, in the matter of Rubynet Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 880 Citation: Healey v Rubynet Pty Ltd, in the matter of Rubynet Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 880
Parties: CARINA LEE-ANNE HEALEY v RUBYNET PTY LTD (ACN 091 395 041)
File number: WAD 414 of 2010
Judge: SIOPIS J
Date of judgment: 17 August 2012
Date of hearing: 14 August 2012
Date of order: 14 August 2012
Place: Perth
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 39
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr CP Stokes
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Chris Stokes & Associates
Counsel for the Defendant: Ms S Edwards
Solicitor for the Defendant: Sonia Edwards Legal
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION WAD 414 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF RUBYNET PTY LTD (Acn 091 395 041) BETWEEN: CARINA LEE-ANNE HEALEY
Plaintiff
AND: RUBYNET PTY LTD (ACN 091 395 041)
Defendant
JUDGE: SIOPIS J DATE OF ORDER: 14 AUGUST 2012 WHERE MADE: PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The originating application is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION WAD 414 of 2010
IN THE MATTER OF RUBYNET PTY LTD (Acn 091 395 041) BETWEEN: CARINA LEE-ANNE HEALEY
Plaintiff
AND: RUBYNET PTY LTD (ACN 091 395 041)
Defendant
JUDGE: SIOPIS J DATE: 17 AUGUST 2012 PLACE: PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 14 August 2012, I made orders dismissing the originating application made by the plaintiff, Ms Carina Lee-Anne Healey (Ms Healey), for relief under s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). I said that I would give my reasons later. These are the reasons. 2 On 23 December 2010, Ms Healey filed an originating application in this Court seeking orders under s 247A of the Corporations Act that the defendant company permit Ms Healey and/or a forensic accountant nominated by her, to inspect and take copies of the financial records of the defendant company. 3 The originating application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Ms Healey on 23 December 2010. 4 In her affidavit, Ms Healey deposed that she was a director and shareholder of the defendant company. The company search of the defendant company attached to Ms Healey's affidavit, showed that there were two company directors, Ms Healey and Ms Tina Michelle Bazzo and that Ms Bazzo had been a director since 8 February 2000 and Ms Healey had been a director since 12 November 2001. Ms Healey also deposed that the defendant company, which appeared to be a vehicle for the conduct of a joint venture, was engaged in property developments; and that in 2010, she found out by searching the titles register that the defendant company had sold a large number of blocks of land and not accounted to her in respect of the proceeds of the sales. 5 Ms Healey went on to say that she sought orders permitting her and/or her forensic accountant to inspect the financial records of the defendant company for each financial year since 1 July 2001. The financial records of the defendant company in respect of which inspection was sought, included the MYOB data files, business activity statements, bank statements, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, the general ledger and taxation returns. 6 Chris Stokes & Associates were the solicitors on the record for Ms Healey.
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