NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 54 ACSR 820
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Easey v Grosvenor Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 878
HEARING DATE(S) : 29/08/05
JUDGMENT DATE : 2 September 2005
Equity Division JURISDICTION : Corporations List
JUDGMENT OF : Barrett J
DECISION : Leave to proceed granted
CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS - application for leave to proceed against company under deed of company arrangement - claim in negligence sought to be pursued may have been extinguished by the deed - pursuit of claim may nevertheless avail claimant in collateral claim against insurer - whether grant of leave would be futile
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss.444B(6), 444D(1), 444E(3) LEGISLATION CITED : Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, s.6
Bernardi v London Partners Australia Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 351 Bistritz v Linkjet Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 67 Brash Holdings Ltd v Katile Pty Ltd [1996] 1 VR 24 Glaister v Banwell Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 101 Josia Pty Ltd v Horvat Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1252 CASES CITED : Kinzett v McCourt (1999) 46 NSWLR 32 Meehan v Stockmans Australian Café (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 123 MYT Engineering Pty Ltd v Mulcon Pty Ltd (1999) 195 CLR 636 Re QMT Constructions Pty Ltd [2000] 1 QdR 284 Wolstenholme v National Express Group Australia (Swanston Trams) Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 476 Worths Pty Ltd v O'Dal [2000] WASCA 120
Barry Easey - Plaintiff PARTIES : Grosvenor Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited - Defendant
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