Cao v Apollo Phoenix [2018] FCA 1445

Sure, corporate oppression is fun but what about reasonable notice for board meetings?!  

A director (or *former* director) applied for immediate interlocutory relief.  The relevant Co found mining tenements and on-sold them. Its strength was its speed: [9]. Perhaps naturally, the board often met on short notice: [21]  

In August 2018 the directors declared our applicant was no longer a director, having been absent from board meetings for the previous 6 months.   The proceedings were, in essence, the applicant seeking to reverse that declaration.  

Our applicant was not the easiest to contact. He lived in China and did not speak English. He was only contactable by way of his translator and may not have had an email address. He was absent from the 6 meetings preceding the August 2018 “declaration meeting”.  

The applicant said the directors failed to give him reasonable notice of those six months of meetings, meaning the August 2018 declaration was oppressive: [56]  At [81] to [111] the Court worked through the correspondence relating to each meeting. 

Having done so, the Court found our applicant did not establish an absence of reasonable notice: [112]  The application failed. Costs followed the event.  Now, who said board meeting litigation was boring?