Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by James d'Apice. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by James d'Apice or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Boyded Industries v Heartland One [2025] NSWSC 1344

12:05
 
Share
 

Manage episode 522022757 series 2953536
Content provided by James d'Apice. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by James d'Apice or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

“I removed your trustee, but you shouldn’t have removed me!”

__

A corporate group focussed on car sales and property holding.The Ps complained a Tee was wrongly removed by the Ds. One the Ds, the group’s CEO, was then removed as CEO and director of various Cos by the Ps: [14]

The Ps brought a claim re the Tee removal. The Ds brought a cross-claim about the removal of the CEO D: [15], [16]

The natural person parties were relatives: [28]

In 2017, the CEO D purported to become the relevant trust’s appointor: [29] – [33]

In 2019, the CEO D attempted to sell their stake in the enterprise for $42m. On the offer’s rejection, relationships deteriorated: [34] – [36]

In 2021 and 2022, various offers were rejected, and proceedings commenced: [37] – [51]

In 2024, CEO D unsuccessfully attempted to remove their aunts, Ps, as directors: [55] – [60]

CEO D as appointor removed the trustee P and appointed a related entity of the Ds: [61] – [72]

The CEO D was then removed as CEO and director by their aunts: [73] – [82]

Each witness faced credibility challenges. Evidence showed the CEO D had falsified docs: [83] – [100], [182]

CEO D’s placement as appointor followed an audit of the group showing some roles were held by the dead: [132] – [138]

There were inconsistent written records of the purported 1 May 2017 meeting placing CEO D as appointor. Some records suggested proper steps to place CEO D as appointor were not taken: [146] – [267]

The Court concluded the relevant P was not in attendance at the relevant meeting, making the meeting inquorate, and meaning CEO D’s placement as appointor was not properly made: [268]

The Ds’ application for s 1322 relief (curing what the Ds characterised as a procedural irregularity) was unsuccessful: [283]

The Ps therefore succeeded: the purported appointment of the Ds’ replacement Tee was invalid as CEO D was not appointor: [399] – [404]

The Court then considered CEO D’s termination as an employee: [407] – [409]

The Ds suggested CEO D’s removal by the Ps was improperly motivated; a ruse to cause a share sale: [461] – [476]

CEO D “shut out” the Ps from management [479], wrote to car makers (who provided the group with its stock for sale) criticising the Ps [483] – [496] and spoke of the Ps in contemptuous, belittling ways over time [497] – [500]

The Court found CEO D properly terminated as the relevant Ps had lost trust and confidence in them: [503]

Nor was the termination found to be a breach of contract: [508]

The Ds alleged CEO D’s termination and removal as director was oppressive for s 232 reasons: [567]

CEO D’s employment termination was not improper, and so not oppressive. Similarly: nor was their removal as director: [589], [606]

The oppression claim failed: [637]

The Ps’ claim succeeded, and the Ds cross-claim failed. Costs followed the event: [648], [649]

___

Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform.#auslaw #coffeeandacasenote #corporatelawyer #gravamenwww.gravamen.com.au

  continue reading

247 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 522022757 series 2953536
Content provided by James d'Apice. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by James d'Apice or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

“I removed your trustee, but you shouldn’t have removed me!”

__

A corporate group focussed on car sales and property holding.The Ps complained a Tee was wrongly removed by the Ds. One the Ds, the group’s CEO, was then removed as CEO and director of various Cos by the Ps: [14]

The Ps brought a claim re the Tee removal. The Ds brought a cross-claim about the removal of the CEO D: [15], [16]

The natural person parties were relatives: [28]

In 2017, the CEO D purported to become the relevant trust’s appointor: [29] – [33]

In 2019, the CEO D attempted to sell their stake in the enterprise for $42m. On the offer’s rejection, relationships deteriorated: [34] – [36]

In 2021 and 2022, various offers were rejected, and proceedings commenced: [37] – [51]

In 2024, CEO D unsuccessfully attempted to remove their aunts, Ps, as directors: [55] – [60]

CEO D as appointor removed the trustee P and appointed a related entity of the Ds: [61] – [72]

The CEO D was then removed as CEO and director by their aunts: [73] – [82]

Each witness faced credibility challenges. Evidence showed the CEO D had falsified docs: [83] – [100], [182]

CEO D’s placement as appointor followed an audit of the group showing some roles were held by the dead: [132] – [138]

There were inconsistent written records of the purported 1 May 2017 meeting placing CEO D as appointor. Some records suggested proper steps to place CEO D as appointor were not taken: [146] – [267]

The Court concluded the relevant P was not in attendance at the relevant meeting, making the meeting inquorate, and meaning CEO D’s placement as appointor was not properly made: [268]

The Ds’ application for s 1322 relief (curing what the Ds characterised as a procedural irregularity) was unsuccessful: [283]

The Ps therefore succeeded: the purported appointment of the Ds’ replacement Tee was invalid as CEO D was not appointor: [399] – [404]

The Court then considered CEO D’s termination as an employee: [407] – [409]

The Ds suggested CEO D’s removal by the Ps was improperly motivated; a ruse to cause a share sale: [461] – [476]

CEO D “shut out” the Ps from management [479], wrote to car makers (who provided the group with its stock for sale) criticising the Ps [483] – [496] and spoke of the Ps in contemptuous, belittling ways over time [497] – [500]

The Court found CEO D properly terminated as the relevant Ps had lost trust and confidence in them: [503]

Nor was the termination found to be a breach of contract: [508]

The Ds alleged CEO D’s termination and removal as director was oppressive for s 232 reasons: [567]

CEO D’s employment termination was not improper, and so not oppressive. Similarly: nor was their removal as director: [589], [606]

The oppression claim failed: [637]

The Ps’ claim succeeded, and the Ds cross-claim failed. Costs followed the event: [648], [649]

___

Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform.#auslaw #coffeeandacasenote #corporatelawyer #gravamenwww.gravamen.com.au

  continue reading

247 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play