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 Dive into the research topics of 'Injunctions and damages under s1324 of the Corporations Act: Will McCracken v Phoenix Constructions revive the narrow approach?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Activities

    Cited by sitting NSW Supreme Court Justice Ashley Black in paper delivered to NSW Bar Association Sydney CPD Conference

    Victoria Baumfield (Participant)
    25 Mar 2017

    Activity: Professional Development, Mentorship, Supervision and Other ActivitiesCitation

    Cite this