High Court of Australia
or183/51
3. 5 Gourley, Gort, Print, Mend,
Ur IN THE HICH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
oe REDGWELL,
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
\ © Judgment delivered at MELBOURNE | on... FRIDAY,..13th. JUNE,.1952.__ 3. _ _ _sactnitmamsitial
RIDGWELL Ve
SOMMERS & ORS.
ORDER
Appeal allowed with costs, including any reserved costs. Decree of Supreme Court of 21st September 1951 set aside. In lieu thereof order that the claims in the suit to which such decree relates be dismissed with costs. Liberty to
apply to this Court with respect to the form of order or
otherwise.
JUDGMENT
RIDGWELL
ve
SOMMERS & ORS.
DIXON_C.J. WILLIAMS J.
wt
RIDGWELL
ve
SOMMERS & ORS.
DIXON C.J. JUDGMENT WILLIAMS J.
This is an appeal by the defendant Mrs. Ridgwell from a decree made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in its equitable jurisdiction (Roper C.J. in Eq.) declering, as the plaintiff claims, that the plaintiff. and the appellant are entitled in equal shares and have been so-entitled since the date of incorporation of Ridgwells (Campsie) Ltd. (now Ridgwells (Campsie) Pty. Ltd.) to all shares in that company and to all rights of the subscribers to the memorandum of association of that company to have the shares therein issuedmd allotted to them and to all rights in respect of these shares and to consequential relief. The appellant claims that she is entitled to the whole of these shares and rights. The company which carries on the business of manu- facturing and selling ladies frocks at Campsie and Parramatta is, of course, a separate entity and in law the ower of the business. But, as will appear, it has never really functioned as a company. No shares have ever been allotted. There are simply eight Signatories to the memorandum of association for one share each. One signatory, Ernest Arthur Marsh, is a co-defendant with the appellant. He is her brother and has sworn in his statement of defence that he has no beneficial interest _in this embryo share and that he has at all times held it on trust for his sister. He did not give evidence at the hearing and the contest throughout has been between the appellant and the plaintiff respondent. She claims to be beneficially entitled to the rights of the subscribers
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