FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Healey v Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd, in the matter of Doncaster Enterprises Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 881
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
IN THE MATTER OF DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (Acn 101 158 301)
| Plaintiff | |
AND: | DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 101 158 301) Defendant |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The originating application is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | WAD 415 of 2010 |
IN THE MATTER OF DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (Acn 101 158 301)
BETWEEN: | CARINA LEE-ANNE HEALEY Plaintiff
|
AND: | DONCASTER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 101 158 301) Defendant
|
JUDGE: | SIOPIS J |
DATE: | 17 AUGUST 2012 |
PLACE: | PERTH |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 14 August 2012, I made orders dismissing the originating application made by the plaintiff, Ms Carina Lee-Anne Healey (Ms Healey), seeking relief under s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). I said that I would give my reasons later. These are the reasons.
2 On 23 December 2010, Ms Healey filed an originating application claiming relief against the defendant company under s 247A of the Corporations Act to permit Ms Healey and/or a forensic accountant nominated by her, to inspect and take copies of the financial records of the defendant company.
3 The originating application was accompanied by an affidavit which was sworn by Ms Healey on 23 December 2010. That affidavit deposed that Ms Healey was a shareholder of the defendant company. Further, Ms Healey stated in her affidavit that she sought orders that she and/or her forensic accountant be permitted to inspect the financial records of the company in respect of each financial year commencing from 1 July 2001. The financial records which Ms Healey wanted to inspect included the MYOB data files, business activity statements, bank statements, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, the general ledger and taxation returns.
4 This proceeding was case managed with proceeding WAD 414 of 2010 which was an application by Ms Healey for relief under s 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 against Rubynet Pty Ltd. Throughout the entire interlocutory process, the same directions, mutatis mutandis, were made at the same directions hearings in relation to each of these two proceedings.
5 On 14 August 2012, I also made orders dismissing the originating application made by Ms Healey in WAD 414 of 2010. I have published reasons for the dismissal of that originating application (Healey v Rubynet Pty Ltd, in the matter of Rubynet Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 880 (Rubynet)).
6 Save for the final three paragraphs, the reasons which I have published in Rubynet, comprise, mutatis mutandis, the reasons for the dismissal of this application by Ms Healey. The final three paragraphs of the reasons for judgment in Rubynet, have no application in this case. Ms Healey ceased to be a director of the defendant company in 2006.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis. |
Associate:
