Maelor Jones Investments (Noarlunga) Pty Ltd v Heywood-Smith

JurisdictionSouth Australia
Year1989
Date1989
CourtSupreme Court of South Australia
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
11 cases
  • Barings Plc ((in Liquidation)) v Coopers & Lybrand (No. 7)
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 11 June 2003
    ...interests at risk other than his own and his wife's. 1621 The paradox was explored in more detail in the Australian case of Maelor Jones v Heywood-Smith (1989) 54 SASR 285. At the time of the facts giving rise to that case, section 365 of the Australian Companies Act was in similar terms to......
  • JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong (A Firm)
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 30 August 2007
    ...law. 162 The court also adverted (at [1130]) to the Australian case of Maelor Jones Investments (Noarlunga) Pty Ltd v Heywood-Smith (1989) 54 SASR 285, which considered a substantially similar provision, namely, s 365(1) of the Companies Act 1962 (Cth). Olsson J declared in that decision at......
  • Santander UK Plc v R.A. Legal Solicitors
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 February 2014
    ...to Barings PLC v Cooper & Lybrand [2003] EWHC 1319 (Ch) and Re D'Jan of London Ltd [1993] BCC 646, and also to Maelor-Jones v Heywood-Smith (1989) 54 SASR 285, as suggesting that something approaching "pervasive and compelling" negligence must be shown before a trustee is cut off from r......
  • Sydlow Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Tg Kotselas Pty Ltd Kotselas and Hamilton
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • WHO LEFT THE GATES UNLOCKED? RECONCILING THE DUTIES OF AUDITORS AND COMPANY DIRECTORS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 December 2008
    ...the CA, the Court of Appeal also cited with approval the Australian case of Maelor Jones Investments (Noarlunga) Pty Ltd v Heywood-Smith(1989) 54 SASR 285 at 294—295 (which considered s 365(1) of the Companies Act 1962 (Cth)), and also the English cases of Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand[20......