//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 611
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-05-21
Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Cattell v Oakbridge Lawyers [2026] NSWSC 611
Hearing dates: 21 May 2026
Date of orders: 21 May 2026
Decision date: 21 May 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision: Proceedings dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — application to strike out — where Plaintiff claims damages for loss of the value of a business owned by a company which he owned — HELD — he has no cause of action — any cause of action is in the hands of the Company — proceedings dismissed
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Re Brew Still Pty Ltd (admin apptd) [2023] NSWSC 256 Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22 Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lucas Cattell (Plaintiff) (self-represented)
Oakbridge Lawyers (First Defendant)
Rodgers Reidy (NSW) Pty Limited ACN 089 898 813 (Second Defendant)
The Media Park (Third Defendant)
Adhub Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
Media Buyers Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
M Hazan (First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants)
J Courtenay (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gilchrist Connell (First Defendant)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Second Defendant)
Anne McDonald & Associates Lawyers (Third Defendant)
Results Legal (Fourth and Fifth Defendants)
File Number(s): 2025/00347949
Publication restriction: Nil
The Plaintiff, Lucas Cattell (Cattell), held a majority interest in Brew Still Pty Ltd ACN 643 581 766 (the Company), which carried on a business of distilling gin and other drinkable alcohol. The Company retained an organisation called the Media Park, the Third Defendant, to provide advertising and media services. The arrangement was financed by the Fourth and Fifth Defendants, Adhub Pty Ltd and Media Buyers Pty Ltd (Adhub and Media Buyers).
Cattell guaranteed the Company’s obligations to Adhub and Media Buyers. Adhub and Media Buyers sued the Company and Cattell in the Local Court for unpaid charges for services and obtained default judgment. They then served a creditor’s statutory demand on the Company, and then moved to wind it up, with the support of the Australian Tax Office, who was owed $74,258 (as appears from the Statutory Report to Creditors dated 16 June 2023).
The default judgment, which had supported the statutory demand, was rescinded by the Local Court but the Company was nevertheless placed into liquidation on the basis of actual (rather than presumed) insolvency: Re Brew Still Pty Ltd (admin apptd*)* [2023] NSWSC 256 (Black J). The Company has since been deregistered.
The First Defendant is a firm of lawyers who represented Adhub and Media Buyers in the Local Court and in this Court.
By these proceedings, Cattell makes a series of complaints against the Defendants concerning the underlying contractual arrangements and the conduct of the proceedings in the Local Court and in this Court. They are all directed to establishing that the value of the Company’s business was destroyed by the Defendants’ bad behaviour.
Cattell filed a Statement of Claim on 20 August 2025 which was manifestly inadequate. Without leave, he filed an Amended Statement of Claim on 11 November 2025, which the Registrar struck out. The Defendants move to strike out the proceedings.
The approach I have taken (without demur from the parties) is to formally strike out the first Statement of Claim and to consider whether Cattell should have leave to amend in terms of the Amended Statement of Claim. Leave to amend is refused because (as in the case of the earlier Statement of Claim) it is fundamentally flawed.
Any claim for damages or compensation for loss or impairment of the Company’s business is its, not Cattell’s (Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22; Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189). An application for leave to bring derivative proceedings pursuant to Part 2F.1A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is not available. The Company has been deregistered.
I record that Cattell sought an adjournment of these proceedings which I refused. The grounds were that he has moved in the Local Court to set aside judgment granted against him personally as guarantor and that pending determination of his application, enforcement against him of that judgment has been stayed. Those circumstances have no bearing on the case because it is the Company’s cause of action.
The appropriate order is that the proceedings be dismissed and I so order.
The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendants’ costs of the proceedings.
**********
Paragraph [9] - replaced "fact that the Company has no cause of action" with "case because it is the Company's cause of action".
Cattell
Oakbridge Lawyers