“Compensate the company. Then pay that money to me!” ___ P, a former shareholder, sought to bring a claim on behalf of the Co and then have the proceeds paid to themselves: [1] - [3] s237(2)(a): the Co was not going to bring the claim itself: [8] s237(2)(d): the Court considered (i) whether the pleaded case could be proved, and (ii) if so whether that would ground the relief sought: [12] When practising, P was the sole shareholder of the Co and principal benef of the trust the Co operated. That way, P’s work earned income for the Co: [16] P chose that structure, and form of income distri ..read more

In March 2024 James had the opportunity to talk with Communications and Law student and producer of the Hearsay Legal Podcast, Jacob Malby, about creativity, freestyle rap, and law. This conversation traverses Coffee and a Case Note as well as other projects of James' with his Spooko co-creator, Thomas McMullan. A link to Spooko is here: https://fbiradio.com/podcast/spooko/ A link to Hearsay is here: https://hearsay.legalcpd.com.au ..read more

“Hey! Stop trying to work for our competitor!” D was a consultant who, in 2022, left one large firm and joined another. D’s expertise was defence work: [2], [3] The 2022 role included a 2 year restraint: [4] The 2022 employer underwent a restructure following a scandal and D was then employed by P, or an entity related to it: [6], [9] D’s contract with P included a 3 month notice period with a right for P to force D to take that time as “gardening leave” [11] and cascading restraints commencing at 12 months and Australia-wide: [12], [14] In November 2023 D resigned indicating they planned to w ..read more

“It’s my wind-up application, so surely I should get my choice of liquidator...?” ___ The Ps brought an application to windup various entities on the s461(1)(k) just and equitable basis, and to appoint receivers to the assets of the associated trusts: [1], [2], [6] The various entities were variously incorporated and settled to develop a marina. That development did not progress as hoped: [3], [13] The relationship between Dir1 and Dir2, the 50-50 controlling minds and shareholders of the relevant entities, irrevocably broke down: [1], [4], [5] The Court found it was just and equitable that th ..read more

“We put all our shit in mum’s name…” ___ P was the deceased’s spouse, and administrator and sole benef of the decd’s estate: [1] The Ds were the decd’s parent, D1; sibling, D2; and some related entities: [2] The decd and D2 - members of a motorcycle club and charged with drug offences years ago - used various entities to engage in business: [4], [5] In 2002 the decd and D2 transferred substantial assets to D1: [7] P said the arrangement was that D1 would hold those assets, and the income they generated, on trust in equal shares for the decd and D2. P said this scheme was to protect the assets ..read more

“We can’t order a share sale. Decide yourselves, or it’s getting wound up!” ___ A number of plaintiffs applied for relief in relation to a shareholder dispute. Through the litigation the issues in dispute narrowed.Both the plaintiffs and defendants preferred for the Ds to buy out the Ps. A winding up order was all parties’ second preference: [1] - [6], [19] Commencing in 2014, the Ps and Ds incorporated Co1 and Co2 to (i) operate a GF bakery and (ii) own the land the bakery was situated on: [8] - [10] Evidentiary wrinkles included one of the Ds seeking a higher salary, one of the Ps resisting ..read more

In January 2024 James got to sit down and chew the fat with BB head honcho, Mike Bromley! They spoke about the founding of Gravamen, the dreaded work / life balance, and why James finds TikTok boring. You can find BB here: https://www.beyondbillables.com/blog ..read more

In December 2023 James caught up with Lara Quie from the Legal Genie Podcast to discuss social media, marketing, legal practice, horror films, battle rap, and everything inbetween! You can find the Legal Genie podcast here: https://thelegalgeniepodcast.buzzsprout.com ..read more

“Yep! You can sue the author to get the company’s IP from them.” ___ A Co’s Dir, P, sought to bring derivative proceedings against a Co’s majority shareholder, D. P wanted declarations that the Co (and not D, who was also the book’s author) was the owner of all intellectual property rights in relation to a book: [1], [6] P said that after D wrote the book, D and the Co entered into an agreement for the Co to acquire the IP in the book: [7] Alternatively, P said D was estopped from asserting they owned the IP. Both D and the Co conducted themselves (including by the Co’s accounting and the coll ..read more

“Let’s appoint an IP to chase the group’s debts!” ___ The Ps were 48% shareholders of a group of Cos that owned luxury car dealerships. The Ds were directors representing 52% of shareholders. The 52% majority owed a judgment debt to the group. The Ps proposed a course for recovering the debt. The Ds used their votes at board level (including a casting vote) to vote down the Ps’ course and vote up their own: [2] There was deep “anger” and “animosity” between the Ps and Ds and “very bitter and distrustful” feelings [58], [69] The Ps argued the Ds had a conflict of interest. The Ds said the Ps di ..read more