Injunctions and damages under s1324 of the Corporations Act: Will McCracken v Phoenix Constructions revive the narrow approach?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Is s 1324(10) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the corporate lawyer’s secret weapon or a damp squib? On its face, s 1324(10) would appear to allow a court to award damages to any person with standing to apply for an injunction under the Act. There has been some debate, however, about the extent to which s 1324(10) must be limited by its apparent contradiction with other portions of the Act. This article examines McCracken v Phoenix Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] 2 Qd R 27; [2012] QCA 129 in light of the previous case law interpreting s 1324 to see what opening remains for affected parties, in particular creditors, to access damages or injunctions under s 1324. The article concludes that while McCracken presents compelling reasons for not awarding s 1324(10) damages to creditors, arguments remain in favour of a broad interpretation of s 1324 for creditors in certain scenarios.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)453-472
Number of pages20
JournalCompany and Securities Law Journal
Volume32
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Fingerprint

creditor
corporation
damages
act
case law
weapon
lawyer
scenario
interpretation
human being

Cite this

@article{cdbc6f61e7bc4e368a36aab4362c8541,
title = "Injunctions and damages under s1324 of the Corporations Act: Will McCracken v Phoenix Constructions revive the narrow approach?",
abstract = "Is s 1324(10) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the corporate lawyer’s secret weapon or a damp squib? On its face, s 1324(10) would appear to allow a court to award damages to any person with standing to apply for an injunction under the Act. There has been some debate, however, about the extent to which s 1324(10) must be limited by its apparent contradiction with other portions of the Act. This article examines McCracken v Phoenix Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] 2 Qd R 27; [2012] QCA 129 in light of the previous case law interpreting s 1324 to see what opening remains for affected parties, in particular creditors, to access damages or injunctions under s 1324. The article concludes that while McCracken presents compelling reasons for not awarding s 1324(10) damages to creditors, arguments remain in favour of a broad interpretation of s 1324 for creditors in certain scenarios.",
author = "Victoria Baumfield",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "453--472",
journal = "Company and Securities Law Journal",
issn = "0729-2775",
publisher = "Thomson Reuters (Prous Science)",
number = "7",

}

Injunctions and damages under s1324 of the Corporations Act: Will McCracken v Phoenix Constructions revive the narrow approach? / Baumfield, Victoria.

In: Company and Securities Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 7, 01.01.2014, p. 453-472.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Injunctions and damages under s1324 of the Corporations Act: Will McCracken v Phoenix Constructions revive the narrow approach?

AU - Baumfield, Victoria

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Is s 1324(10) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the corporate lawyer’s secret weapon or a damp squib? On its face, s 1324(10) would appear to allow a court to award damages to any person with standing to apply for an injunction under the Act. There has been some debate, however, about the extent to which s 1324(10) must be limited by its apparent contradiction with other portions of the Act. This article examines McCracken v Phoenix Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] 2 Qd R 27; [2012] QCA 129 in light of the previous case law interpreting s 1324 to see what opening remains for affected parties, in particular creditors, to access damages or injunctions under s 1324. The article concludes that while McCracken presents compelling reasons for not awarding s 1324(10) damages to creditors, arguments remain in favour of a broad interpretation of s 1324 for creditors in certain scenarios.

AB - Is s 1324(10) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the corporate lawyer’s secret weapon or a damp squib? On its face, s 1324(10) would appear to allow a court to award damages to any person with standing to apply for an injunction under the Act. There has been some debate, however, about the extent to which s 1324(10) must be limited by its apparent contradiction with other portions of the Act. This article examines McCracken v Phoenix Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2013] 2 Qd R 27; [2012] QCA 129 in light of the previous case law interpreting s 1324 to see what opening remains for affected parties, in particular creditors, to access damages or injunctions under s 1324. The article concludes that while McCracken presents compelling reasons for not awarding s 1324(10) damages to creditors, arguments remain in favour of a broad interpretation of s 1324 for creditors in certain scenarios.

UR - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2508992

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 453

EP - 472

JO - Company and Securities Law Journal

JF - Company and Securities Law Journal

SN - 0729-2775

IS - 7

ER -