On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 the High Court will deliver
three judgments.
The first is in Papaconstuntinos
v Holmes a Court. This case arises out of the bid made by Holmes
a Court and Russell Crowe in 20005 to inject money into the South Sydney Rugby
League Club, a bid that was bitterly opposed by the appellant. In the
course of the antagonistic machinations prior to the Extraordinary General
Meeting that approved the bid, Holmes a Court wrote a letter to Andrew
Fergusson (state secretary of the CFMEU, of which the appellant was a member)
accusing the appellant of making misleading statements about the bid, and
making allegation of a misuse of Souths’ funds a few years earlier at a time
when the appellant’s son was employed by Souths. The letter was found to
be defamatory. At issue is whether or not Holmes a Court was entitled to
succeed on a defence of qualified privilege at common law.
Next is Westfield Management Ltd v AMP Capital Property Nominees Ltd, an appeal from the
NSW Court of Appeal arising out of a dispute between UniSuper and Westfield
whether to wind-up their joint venture investment scheme in the Karrinyup
Regional Shopping Centre in Perth. At issue is whether or not the
Unitholders’ and Joint Venture Agreement properly construed has the effect that
UniSuper cannot vote to wind-up the scheme under section 601NB of the Corporations
Act without the prior written consent of Westfield, and if so whether
the Agreement is to that extent unenforceable as being contrary to the public
interest.
Finally, judgment will be delivered in Commissioner of
Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd. This case considers
the proper constructions of section 159GZZZP of the Income Tax Assessment
Act 1936 and its application to a buy-back of 29% of Consolidated Media’s
shareholding in Crown Melbourne Ltd at a price of $1 billion. At issue is
whether this should properly be treated as a capital gain, or whether it should
be treated as a dividend (and therefore entitled to a rebate).
No comments:
Post a Comment