PART A:  Case Analysis (1000 words)                                                      

The following questions relate to the case Montevento Holdings Ltd v Scaffidi  [2012] HCA 48. Students are required to find the case  (*hint: go to www.austlii.edu.au) and to apply relevant legal theories in your answers.

1.Where is the case being heard?                                                          

2.Who are the appellants and respondents in this case?                        

3.What jurisdiction is this court exercising in this case?                          

4.Where was the case heard before this?                                               

5.Identify the type of trust dealt with in this case. Briefly define the role of such trusts.                                                                                                   

6.Who are the three parties in a trust? Identify these three parties for this case.  

7.Outline the legal arguments being made by the appellants.                  

8.What was the Court’s decision regarding Montevento Holding Pty Ltd’s role as Nominee Trustee?                                                                                 

9.Discuss the duties of a trustee. Was there a breach of duties in this case?

10 Summarise the Court’s findings. 

PART B: Problem Question                                             

Joseph, Leon and Melanie are running a café as a partnership. Whilst out shopping with his wife one Saturday, Leon sees a coffee grinding machine which he believes would be perfect for the business. He is unable to contact the other two partners on the phone but proceeds with buying the coffee grinder anyway.

(i)Discuss whether the partnership is bound by the transaction that Leon entered into. Justify your answer.                                               

(ii)The firm has two employees on a two-year employment contract. Due to a slowdown in business, the three partners decide that they need to fire their employees.   

PART C: Essay Question                                              

  “After that… all that the directors do with reference to what I may call the indoor management of their own concern, is a thing known to them and known to them only .

 Lord Hatherly in Mahony v East Holyford Mining Co (1874-75), LR 7 HL 869    

Critically analyse and contrast the common law and statutory indoor management rule with reference to appropriate sections of the Corporations Act (2001)  and case law. Students should also look at the limitations and exceptions to the use of the indoor management rule

Read less