Australia: Sons Of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic; ING Investment Management LLC v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1 (31 January 2007)

Last Updated: 14 February 2007

Originally presented at Gadens Lawyers on 7 February 2007 by Ivan Griscti, Barrister, Seven Wentworth

1. Introduction

This case is one of an increasing number of "shareholders’ actions" brought in recent times. It concerns how a shareholders’ claim against a company should be treated in the context of a winding up or administration.

2. Facts

2.1 In August 2004 Mr Margaretic purchased 20,000 fully paid ordinary shares in the capital of gold mining company, Sons Of Gwalia Ltd (SAG). The purchase took place on the market conducted by the ASX.

2.2 Eleven days after the share purchase the company went into voluntary administration.

2.3 It was agreed by the parties that upon appointment of the administrator the value of the shares was zero and would remain zero.

2.4 There are two principal bases to Mr Margaretic’s action against SOG.

2.5 First, he claims that the company was in breach of section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001. This section imposes obligations on listed companies whose shares can be purchased on the open market to make continuous disclosure of information which is not generally available but a reasonable person would expect, if it were generally available, to have a material effect on the price or value of the shares. The Corporations Act permits an action for compensation by a person who suffers loss as a consequence of such a breach.

2.6 Additionally, Mr Maragaretic seeks damages on account of alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act and section 12DA of the ASIC Act.

2.7 The company being in administration, Mr Margaretic intended to submit his claim for proof in the deed of company arrangement of SOG. There were other shareholders who had either made or intended to make similar claims.

2.8 The deed administrators applied to the Federal Court for a declaration that Mr Margaretic’s claim is not provable in the deed of company arrangement.

2.9 Alternatively, they sought a declaration that the claim be postponed until all debts owed to or claims made by creditors other than shareholders claiming in their capacity as members were met.

2.10 ING Investment Management LLC, a creditor of SOG, was named as second respondent in the action.

2.11 Mr Margaretic, also sought a declaration that he is a creditor of SOG and entitled to the same rights as other creditors, such as attendance at meetings, voting rights and the like.

3. The Earlier Decisions

3.1 At first instance, Mr Margaretic was successful. Emmet J held that he was a creditor of SOG within the meaning of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act for such amount as the Administrators admit to proof, or are ordered to admit to proof, and that he is entitled to all the rights of a creditor under that part. Emmet J also declared that the claim is not postponed until debts to ordinary creditors are satisfied.

3.2 SOG and ING appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The appeals were unsuccessful, the Full Court affirming the decision of Emmet J.

3.3 Special leave was granted to appeal to the High Court.

4. The High Court’s Decision

4.1 The issues before the High Court were:

  1. Is the claim admissible to proof against the company: s 553 of the Corporations Act?
  2. If so, is any potential liability owed to Mr Margaretic in his capacity as a member of the company, meaning that payment is postponed until other creditors are satisfied: s 536A of the Corporations Act?

4.2 The High Court held by a 6:1 majority (Callinan J dissenting) in favour of Mr Margaretic, dismissing the appeal and answering the above questions yes and no.

Section 553 – Admissibility to proof of claim

4.3 Section 553 (1) of the Corporations Act is in the following terms:

"(1) Subject to this Division, in every winding up, all debts payable by, and all claims against, the company (present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or sounding only in damages), being debts or claims the circumstances giving rise to which occurred before the relevant date, are admissible to proof against the company."

4.4 Did the circumstances giving rise to Mr Margaretic’s claim occur before "the relevant date"? For current purposes, the relevant date was the date on which the directors appointed administrators to the company under Part 5.3A, being the day that the administration began.

4.5 This issue is analysed by Hayne J, with whom the other majority members agreed.

4.6 He observes that when Mr Margaretic purchased his shares he paid the market value for them. After appointment of administrators the shares became worthless but, there was a market for the shares until that point.

4.7 The relevant conduct said to comprise the statutory breaches founding the claims (the non disclosures, misleading and deceptive conduct) occurred before the relevant date, but the loss was not apparent until the appointment of administrators. The "extinction of value" arose because of the administrators’ appointment.

4.8 His Honour held that this latter fact did not mean that the circumstances giving rise to the claim did not arise before the relevant date.

4.9 If Mr Margaretic had known the relevant facts before SOG appointed administrators he would have had complete causes of action against SOG for identical relief. His claim would have been for damages representing the difference between the cost of purchase of the shares and the true value of what he bought as determined by a properly informed market (that is to say, he had a cause of action on purchase as he had bought a "lemon").

Hayne J puts it in the following terms at [176]:

"It follows that, although the agreed facts demonstrate that the appointment of administrators reduced the value of Mr Margaretic's shares to zero, his claim is one the circumstances giving rise to which occurred before the administrators' appointment. Had the facts upon which Mr Margaretic now relies been known then, they would have been known to the whole market, not just him, and he would have had the same claim he now makes[208]. His knowledge of the relevant facts bears only upon whether he makes a claim; his knowledge of those facts does not bear upon whether he has a claim. His claim is of a kind that is within s 553 of the 2001 Act."

Section 563A – Is "debt" owed in capacity as member

4.10 Section 563A is in the following terms:

"Payment of a debt owed by a company to a person in the person's capacity as a member of the company, whether by way of dividends, profits or otherwise, is to be postponed until all debts owed to, or claims made by, persons otherwise than as members of the company have been satisfied."

4.11 Whilst any liability would be a debt owed to a member does it follow that it would be owed to Mr Margaretic in his capacity as a member?

4.12 The majority answered this question in the negative. Gleeson CJ summarises the position as follows at [31]:

What determines the present case is that the claim made by the respondent is not founded upon any rights he obtained or any obligations he incurred by virtue of his membership of the first appellant. He does not seek to recover any paid-up capital, or to avoid any liability to make a contribution to the company's capital. His claim would be no different if he had ceased to be a member at the time it was made, or if his name had never been entered on the register of members. The respondent's membership of the company was not definitive of the capacity in which he made his claim. The obligations he sought to enforce arose, by virtue of the first appellant's conduct, under one or more of the statutes mentioned in the earlier description of the respondent's claim.

4.13 Hayne J makes the following observations at [205] – [206]:

"…absent specific legislation giving subscribing members particular remedies as members, no distinction is to be drawn between shareholders who complain that a company's deceit or misleading or deceptive conduct induced them to acquire shares in the company according to whether that acquisition was by subscription or transfer.

In the present case, the obligation which Mr Margaretic seeks to enforce is not an obligation which the 2001 Act creates in favour of a company's members. The obligation Mr Margaretic seeks to enforce, in so far as it is based in statutory causes of action, is rooted in the company's contravention of the prohibition against engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct and the company's liability to suffer an order for damages or other relief at the suit of any person who has suffered, or is likely to suffer, loss and damage as a result of the contravention. In so far as the claim is put forward in the tort of deceit, it is a claim that stands altogether apart from any obligation created by the 2001 Act and owed by the company to its members. Those claims are not claims "owed by a company to a person in the person's capacity as a member of the company".

Status of Houldsworth and Webb Distributors

4.14 ING sought to argue that there is a principle of common law emerging from the House of Lords’ decision Houldsworth v City of Glasgow Bank1, which precludes a shareholder from proving in a winding up a claim for damages for misrepresentation inducing the acquisition, unless the shareholder has first rescinded the "membership contract". Once a company goes into liquidation or administration, rescission is not possible, and, therefore, a claimant such as Mr Maragaretic is precluded from pursuing his claim.

4.15 The decision in Houldsworth obtains some recognition in the High Court’s judgment in Webb Distributors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Victoria2.

4.16 In Webb Distributors the High Court refrained from determining whether Houldsworth was right or wrong but addressed the issue of whether the propositions distilled by the House of Lords from the Companies Act 1862 were incorporated into the Victorian Companies Code, then under consideration.

4.17 The High Court in Webb Distributors regarded Houldsworth as relevant to interpreting s 360(1)(k) of the Victorian Companies Code and held that the shareholders in that case could not prove in a liquidation as they were precluded from rescinding the contracts under which they acquired their shares.

4.18 Webb Distributors is not expressly over ruled3 but it is distinguished to the point where it has little ongoing influence. The High Court in Webb Distributors was said to be concerned with the construction of s 360 of the Vic Companies Code. Section 563A, the section currently under construction, is in different terms, its genesis being in the new provisions introduced into the Corporations Law in 1992.

4.19 Hayne J, at [190], states that neither Houldsworth nor Webb Distributors established a common law principle that a shareholder must rescind a contract for purchase of shares in order to bring an action of this type. The current case was also distinguishable on the facts as Mr Margaretic had not contracted with the company in order to acquire the shares. Significantly, however, his Honour went on to say that Mr Margaretic’s position would have been no different if he had been a subscriber of shares from the company.

4.20 It is emphasised in a number of the judgments that the case is very much concerned with the proper interpretation of provisions of the Corporations Act 2001. In this context, the terms of that Act and its legislative history, rather than any longstanding common law principles are relevant.4

5. Conclusion

5.1 The High Court’s decision confirms that shareholders’ claims to recover losses due to wrongdoing by a company rank equally with the claims of other unsecured creditors. In this regard, there is to be no distinction between claimants who acquired their shares by subscription or those who acquired them on the open market.

5.2 Against the background of the High Court’s decision in Campbells Cash & Carry P/L v Fostif 5, in relation to litigation funding, and the user friendly class action provisions of the Federal Court Act, the decision may encourage further shareholders’ actions.

5.3 There has been some speculation that there may be a legislative response to the decision, in order to bring Australia in line with the US position.

5.4 However, there is nothing in the judgment that can be said to be inconsistent with the policy behind the Corporations Act 2001. This Act, along with beneficial legislation such as the Trade Practices Act and ASIC Act, imposes certain obligations on companies and directors regarding their conduct and provide rights for aggrieved parties to recover losses incurred due to breach of those obligations. Shareholders would argue that there is no proper reason why their claims, legitimately brought, should be subordinated to the claims of others.

5.5 At a practical level, the decision confirms insolvency practitioners will be required to give full consideration to all such claims made against a company in the context of a liquidation or administration, rather than postpone dealing with them. It also means a risk of reduced returns to other unsecured creditors.

5.6 Further, the analysis by Hayne J by which it was determined that the circumstances of the claim arose pre administration, despite the loss crystallising on the appointment of administrators, is likely to be utilised to determine similar issues in this and other legislation.


1. (1880) 5 App Cas 317

2. (1993) 179 CLR 15

3. Gummow J expressly doubts its correctness at [97]. Kirby J expressly agreed with Gummow J on this point and states at [104], "Webb Distributors is proof once again (if further proof is needed) of the dangers in attributing undue weight to what was said in England in the 19th century when attempting to construe contemporary Australian legislation".

4. As observed by Hayne J at [183], the Houldsworth decision pre dated the House of Lords’ decision in Salomon v Salomon, 1897 AC 22, the decision that established the "separate legal personalities of the corporation and its corporators".

5. [2006]HCA 41

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.