Re Rondahl
| Jurisdiction | South Australia |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Australia |
| Year | 2005 |
| Date | 2005 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
19 cases
-
張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份And Another v 張才奎And Another
...was not allowed to vote at the EGM. The decision was upheld by a majority of 2:1 of the Full Court of South Australia (See: Re Rondahl (2005) 226 ALR 475). The majority took the view that the administrator pendente lite should act in an impartial manner and not prefer one class of beneficia......
-
張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份And Another v 張才奎And Another
...was not allowed to vote at the EGM. The decision was upheld by a majority of 2:1 of the Full Court of South Australia (See: Re Rondahl (2005) 226 ALR 475). The majority took the view that the administrator pendente lite should act in an impartial manner and not prefer one class of beneficia......
-
張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份And Another v 張才奎And Another
...was not allowed to vote at the EGM. The decision was upheld by a majority of 2:1 of the Full Court of South Australia (See: Re Rondahl (2005) 226 ALR 475). The majority took the view that the administrator pendente lite should act in an impartial manner and not prefer one class of beneficia......
-
張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份And Another v 張才奎And Another
...was not allowed to vote at the EGM. The decision was upheld by a majority of 2:1 of the Full Court of South Australia (See: Re Rondahl (2005) 226 ALR 475). The majority took the view that the administrator pendente lite should act in an impartial manner and not prefer one class of beneficia......
Get Started for Free