NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Labraga v Pomfret; Highland v Labraga [2005] NSWSC 973
HEARING DATE(S) : 13, 14 and 15 July 2005 [then written submissions]
JUDGMENT DATE : 29 September 2005
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq
DECISION : 2063/05: Plaintiff not entitled to equitable charge. Order that second defendant be wound up; 2466/05: Grant of probate revoked; first plaintiff appointed administratrix cta.
CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS [219]- Winding up- Small proprietary company- Provisional liquidator appointed- Breakdown in relationship between directors- Mistrust between directors sufficient to wind up on just and equitable ground. EQUITY [32]- Charge- Specific performance of agreement to create charge- Director of company loaned personal funds to company- Director asserted that loan secured by equitable fixed and floating charge over company's mortgage book- Whether conversations between directors created agreement- Whether mortgage book too variable an asset to attract fixed charge- Discussion of whether specific performance may be granted where content of purported agreement too vague. SUCCESSION [104]- Revocation of probate- Executors were business partners of testator- Executors not co-operating- Estate not fully administered- Testator taken to consent to any conflict arising because of appointment of business partners as executors- Testator's choice of executors not lightly set aside- Borderline case- Revocation granted where one of two executors removed and no real opposition to revocation or choice of new administrator.
LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 266, 461(1)(k), 513A
Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corporation (Australia) Ltd v Burnard (1992) 27 NSWLR 415 Buxton v Lister (1746) 3 Atk 383; 26 ER 1020 Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 Hordern v Hordern [1910] AC 465 Jackson v Richards [2005] NSWSC 630 Joseph v National Magazine Co Ltd [1959] Ch 14 Mavrideros v Mack (1998) 45 NSWLR 80 Morgan v Macrae [2001] NSWSC 1017 National Provincial & Union Bank of England v Charnley [1924] 1 KB 431 CASES CITED : Palmer v Carey [1926] AC 703 Rodick v Gandell (1852) 1 De GM & G 763; 42 ER 749 Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584 Thomas v Mackay Investments Pty Ltd (1996) 22 ACSR 294 Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 Vyse v Foster (1874) LR 7 HL 318 Wight v Haberdan Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 280 Wilson v Furness Railway Co (1869) LR 9 Eq 28 Wilson v Northampton & Banbury Junction Railway Co (1874) 9 Ch App 279
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