Natcomp Technology Australia Pty Limited v Graiche [2001] NSWCA 120

Reported Decision : (2001) 19 ACLC 1117

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Natcomp Technology Australia Pty Limited v Graiche [2001] NSWCA 120 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40063/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 30 March 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 April 2001

PARTIES : Natcomp Technology Australia Pty Limited (Appellant) Joseph Graiche (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 1; Stein JA at 2; Heydon JA at 16

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 3626/97 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Hogan ADCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : B A J Coles QC/T D Blackburn (Appellant) R B S MacFarlan QC/M Wigney (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Gray & Perkins (Appellant) P A Somerset & Co (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : COMMERCIAL LAW - director's duties - s 60(1) The Corporations Law - whether a de facto director or a shadow director - extent of involvement in business necessary to be deemed a director - ND LEGISLATION CITED : The Corporations Law (NSW) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) CASES CITED: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Austin (1998) 28 ACSR 565 Re Valleys Rugby League Footbal Club Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 645 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40063/00 DC 3626/97

SPIGELMAN CJ STEIN JA HEYDON JA

Monday, 30 April 2001 NATCOMP TECHNOLOGY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED v Joseph GRAICHE

Facts:

The appellant company supplied computer equipment to Amtech Industries Pty Ltd (Amtech), a company that went into liquidation in late 1996. At first instance, the appellant obtained default judgment against the appointed directors of Amtech, Messrs Le Gentil and Serra. The respondent, who was not an appointed director of Amtech, had made a series of statements, and permitted statements to be made in his presence, which suggested a close connection between himself and Amtech. The appellant appeals the decision of Hogan ADCJ that the respondent was neither a 'de facto' or a 'shadow' director under s60(1) of the Corporations Law .