Activities per year
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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 453-472 |
Number of pages | 20 |
Journal | Company and Securities Law Journal |
Volume | 32 |
Issue number | 7 |
Publication status | Published - 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.Related Activities
- 1 Citation
-
Cited by sitting NSW Supreme Court Justice Ashley Black in paper delivered to NSW Bar Association Sydney CPD Conference
Victoria Baumfield (Participant)
25 Mar 2017Activity: Professional Development, Mentorship, Supervision and Other Activities › Citation