NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Trend Laboratories Pty. Limited & Anor. v. Redford [2001] NSWSC 110 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1856/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 November, 4, 5, 6 December 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 March 2001
Trend Laboratories Pty. Limited - 1st plaintiff PARTIES : Envirolabs Pty. Limited - 2nd plaintiff Alan Redford - defendant JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson CJinEq at 1
COUNSEL : Mr. B. Coles QC with Mr. C.R. Newlinds for plaintiffs Mr. C. Birch SC for defendant SOLICITORS : Michell Sillar, Sydney for plaintiffs M.C. Antunes, North Sydney for defendant CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS - Oppression - Arrangement for sale of product to majority shareholder - Prices fixed so that no profit made - Whether oppression against minority shareholder. DECISION : See end of judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
CORAM: HODGSON, CJ in Eq.
Monday 12th March 2001
NO. 1856 OF 1998 TREND LABORATORIES PTY. LTD. & ANOR. V. REDFORD
JUDGMENT
1 Between about July 1992 and March 1998, the defendant Alan Redford was employed by the second plaintiff Envirolabs as its managing director. From about August 1992, Mr. Redford held 20,000 shares in Envirolabs. The other 80,000 shares in Envirolabs were held by the first plaintiff Trend. 2 Mr. Redford's employment with Envirolabs came to an end on or about 20th March 1998. On that day, Mr. Redford entered Envirolabs' factory at Lisarow, and removed a component known as a blow pin from each of nine extrusion blow moulding machines. 3 In these proceedings, commenced on 26th March 1998, Trend and Envirolabs claim damages from Mr. Redford arising from this matter, and also from other alleged breaches of duty by Mr. Redford; and they also claim other declarations and orders. 4 Mr. Redford has brought a cross-claim against Trend, Envirolabs and James Hyde, a director of Trend and Envirolabs, claiming various relief, including remedies for alleged oppression of Mr. Redford as a shareholder of Envirolabs, and also remedies in relation to items of property allegedly detained or lost by the cross-defendants.
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