//
[2025] NSWSC 1108
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-09-24
Black J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1108
Hearing dates: Consent order submitted 11 September 2025
Date of orders: 12 September 2025
Decision date: 24 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision: The Court grants leave to the Applicants, on an interim basis, to file a Statement of Claim
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS — Statutory derivative action — Application to bring proceedings on behalf of company — where limitation period may expire while application for leave part heard – whether interim leave should be granted pending hearing of application
Legislation Cited: - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 236–237, 241. 247A
Cases Cited: - Re Legal Practice Management Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1500
- Re RUS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1075
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Stephen Thomas Wright (Plaintiff)
SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
SkyCity Entertainment Group Limited (Second Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
King & Wood Mallesons (Plaintiff)
Gilbert & Tobin (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2025/245896
By Originating Process filed on 27 June 2025, the Plaintiff, Mr Wright, seeks relief under ss 237 and 247A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including leave to bring proceedings on behalf of and in the name of SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd (“SCA”) against specified persons.
By an Amended Interlocutory Process, a third party funder provided certain undertakings to the Court in respect of the costs of the claim, Mr Wright gave an undertaking that he would not serve or otherwise continue the proceedings against the Defendants without further leave of the Court, and he sought leave on an interim basis pursuant to ss 236, 237 and 241(1)(a) of the Act to file a Statement of Claim on that basis. SCA consented to orders being made in that form.
The Court has power to make an order on an interim basis to permit the commencement of proceedings. That power expressly arises under s 241 of the Corporations Act which provides that the Court may make any orders, on an application for leave, including interim orders. In Re RUS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1075, I held that an order granting leave for derivative proceedings could be made on an interim basis, where a grant of leave was necessary, without a full exploration of the factual issues, in order to permit a party to commence an application to set aside a creditor's statutory demand within the 21-day period in which such an application had to be brought. I am satisfied that orders may be made on that basis, consistent with the approach taken in my judgment in Re Legal Practice Management Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1500, to preserve any limitation period in respect of the proceedings. I note that a substantive application for leave to bring derivative proceedings, in order to continue the proceedings, is presently listed for hearing before Nixon J on 5 November 2025.
**********