Reply to thread

Redgum gave a link to the ASI Vs Brisconnections judgement. I found these paragraphs interesting. They seem to be in conflict with earlier correspondence sent by brisconnections to unit holders.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2009/128.html

"224 Turning to the facts of this case, is there a present obligation on

ASI to pay an instalment which may become payable on the happening of

some future event? The obligation to pay an instalment is only imposed

on those unit holders identified as being registered on 29 April 2009.

No obligation arises out of being a unit holder as such. The obligation

only arises if the person is a unit holder on a certain day. Being a

unit holder does not by itself give rise to any contingent liability to

pay any instalment. The liability is not sourced from the fact that some

months earlier before the instalment date the person held units. The

liability is solely sourced from the person being a unit holder on the

instalment day.

234 As to the suggestion that ASI has engaged in some sort of improper

scheme by having units transferred to it by a deed of gift, I do not

accept that submission. I see nothing improper in a unit holder

transferring its units as alleged. The project imposes liability on

persons who are unit holders on a certain date. On the basis of the

submissions before me, I find there is no impropriety per se involved in

a person taking steps to ensure that he, she or it is not a unit holder

on the instalment date. It appears that a great many unit holders

disposed of their units in October and November of 2008. It may have

been the case that they did so to avoid the payment of the instalments.

In any event, it is not necessary for me to make any findings about

those matters.

238 I do not accept the suggestion that the transactions and the put

option are analogous to s 172 of the Property Law Act 1958 (Victoria).

BMC invokes the common law principles that underlie s 172 of the

Property Law Act 1958. BMC alleges that ASI is seeking to divest itself

of potential liabilities to avoid meeting them and by a means that

ensures that the liabilities will not be met. I do not see any

unconscionable or impropriety in such conduct. If it is the case, as it

is suggested, that the units will not be valued in the market for an

amount equal to or more than the second instalment on and after 29 April

2009 when the second instalment will be paid by the unit holders or the

underwriters, then it is in the commercial interest of a current unit

holder to avoid by legal means, if it can, becoming liable to pay the

instalment.

239 The BrisConnections Project relies on many parties making rational

commercial decisions in their own interests to make a profit. It does

not rely on any person undertaking any publicly spirited actions of

charity. The project is a commercial venture. It may not be in the

commercial interests of current unit holders to remain unit holders on

29 April 2009, I do not see anything improper in unit holders taking

legal steps to ensure they are not registered unit holders on 29 April

2009.

240 BMC relies on principles of equity, which themselves rely on

unconscionability. Why is it unconscionable for a unit holder, whose

investment in the project is currently valueless, takings steps to avoid

wasting more money on the project, if that be the case? Perhaps it might

be said that others have relied on the current unit holder paying the

instalments and have altered their position to their advantage on such

reliance. None of the existing unit holders have represented, however,

that they will remain unit holders on 29 April 2009 or that they will

ensure the second payment is made. The other contracting parties in the

BrisConnections Project took the risk that the project may not be

successful, if that be the case, and that existing unit holders may seek

to cease being unit holders on 29 April 2009. The evidence establishes

that institutions who held substantial numbers of units in the unit

trusts disposed of these units some time ago and that the current unit

holders include many who were not aware of the liability attached to the

units when they acquired them. On the limited submissions that were

made, I do not find any matter in s 172 of the Property Law Act 1958

that is relevant to the just and equitable claim."