NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision: 81 ACSR 209
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Varma v Varma [2010] NSWCA 358
HEARING DATE(S): 6 December 2010
JUDGMENT DATE: 16 December 2010
JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA at 1
DECISION: 1. That the current interlocutory undertakings entered into by consent on 9 August 2010 be varied so as to allow Taj Food Sales Pty Ltd, the third respondent, (subject to the right of the appellant, if it exists, following the appeal or in any new trial to recover from the first respondent such part of the dividend paid to him, and to recover from the second respondent such part of the dividend paid to him), to declare and to pay a dividend to the first, second and fourth respondents, in accordance with their respective shareholding rights, a sum not exceeding in total $240,000, providing always that the said dividends must only be declared and paid out of the net profit of the third respondent. 2.Costs of the application be costs in the appeal. [The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
CATCHWORDS: Procedure - appeal - dispute as to ownership of shareholding in company - application for declaration of dividend to enable respondents to fund costs of appeal
LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW)
CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd [2002] NSWCA 383; (2002) 55 NSWLR 737 New South Wales Bar Association v Stephens [2003] NSWCA 95; (2003) 52 ATR 602 Power v Ekstein [2010] NSWSC 137 CASES CITED: Re D G Brims & Sons Pty Ltd (1995) 16 ACSR 559 Re Middle Harbour Investments Ltd (in liq) (Court of Appeal, 15 December 1976, unreported) Varma v Varma [2010] NSWSC 786 Varma v Varma [2009] NSWSC 1086 Whitlam v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2002] NSWCA 312; (2003) 43 ACSR 73
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