Australia Law of North V Marra Developments Ltd †Free Samples

The leading case of North V Marra Developments Ltd (1981) was decided by the High Court of Australia on 9 th December 1981. The Hon’ble Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ decided the case against the Appellant and in favor of the Respondant. As per the fact of the case, the Appellants are the member of a stock broking firm (Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd). The Appellants were initially trading in the name of NORTHS but are now considered as J. & J. NORTH. In 1954, Marra (Respondent) was incorporated as a public company. There were various rural properties that were acquired by Marra in 1974 in New South Wales. Its ninety three percent issued and paid up capital was held by 5 families. The shares of the company were listed on Sydney Stock Exchange. But, prior to 1974 the true value of the company assets were not depicted with the help of the balance sheets of the company or the market value of the assets. Considering with the situation, the Appellants in around December 1972-February 1974 submitted that there is a need that market capitalization of the asset must be done so that the true value of the Marra assets can be determined. There were three recommendations that were given by the Appellant and all the three were accepted by the Respondent. It is alleged by J. & J. NORTH that they have provided advisory services regarding the reorganization of the capital of Marra Developments Ltd. ("Marra") and advised on the takeover of Marra upon Scottish Australia Holdings Ltd. ("Scottish") and thus they are eligible for remunerations and the interest thereon from the Respondents. (Jade, 2017) Thus the main issue that was developed from the facts of the case was whether the Appellant is liable to claim the remuneration with interest from the Respondent. Now, because of the acts that are undertaken by the appellant and the Respondent, the major duty that was violated is submitted herein under. That the agreement amid the Appellant and the Respondent to carry out the scheme and the carrying out the scheme itself (of capitalization and takeover) are in violation of section 70 of the Securities Industry Act 1970 of New South Wales. The scheme itself and its conduct both are illegal in nature. (Armson, 2009) Because of the act, there is violation of section 1041A (Price Manipulation) and section 1041B of the Corporation Act 2001 (False Trading and Market Rigging). The main reason because of which the duties were considered to be violated are: The prices of the shares are increased by appellant involvement of buying the shares. The Appellant filed a case, however, the same is rejected by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. It is submitted but Meares J, that the argument of the defendant that the acts of the Appellant involves illegality is valid as the acts are in violation of section 70 of the Securities Industry Act 1970. The Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal of the appellant, Against the decisions of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant filed the present appeal. On 9 th December 1981 the Hon’ble Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ submitted that the proposal which is recommended by the Appellant and which is later carried out by both the appellant and the defendant regarding the purchase/sale on the Stock Exchange in the Respondent is not found to be legal. It is decided that the agreement to carry out the scheme and the carrying out the scheme itself are in violation of section 70 of the Securities Industry Act 1970 of New South Wales. The scheme itself and its conduct both are illegal in nature. The court also held that the actions of the parties are not such which resulted in considering the same as conspiracy to deceive. Thus, the amount that is claimed by the Appellant cannot be recovered and the appeal stands dismissed.   The High Court decided that the amount that is claimed by the Appellant cannot be recovered and the appeal stands dismissed.   The main reasons that are attributed by the High Court which form the basis of the decision is submitted below and is critically analyzed: (O'Connell, 2013) In the Corporation Act 2001, considering the observations that are made Mason J and the changes under the 1980 Act, few variations were made regarding the market rigging and the false market provisions. There were few amendments that were made to section 998 of the corporation Act 2001. Because of the above facts, it is submitted by Mason J that any activity which gave the market false or misleading appearance is prohibited under statue. The acts of the appellant were against the statutory prohibition and thus the actions were illegal so they are not permitted to take advantage of any statutory wrong; These actions of the appellant were not regarded as legal in concern with section 70 of the 1970 act (E.T. Fisher &Co. Pty. Ltd. v. English Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd.  (1940). The actions of the Respondent with the help of the appellant which has resulted in enhancing the market price of the company of the respondent so that there is completion of takeover is an act which in contract to the provisions of section 70 of the Act. Thus, an illegal act cannot justify any benefits to be accrued in favor of the default. So, the appellant itself at fault cannot claim remuneration for an illegal act. The court held that the appeal of the appellant is not found to be favorable not because the agreement in which they are relying is in violation of section 70 but mainly because the actions in which they indulged into are itself illegal in nature. So, on those grounds it is decided by the High court that the appellant is not rightful in suing the Respondents and claim their remunerations on the basis that the acts in which they indulge into are itself illegal in nature. In the leading case there were series of observations that were made in relation to section 70 of the 1970 Act. Mainly the interpretation of the section signifies that there must be presence of some element in order for the application of the section. The   law submitted by Majon J is now not applicable in the current law . however, based on the observations that are made by the Hon’ble Judhe there were changes that were brought in Securities Industry Act 1980 (Cth) (1980 Act). (O'Connell, 2013) In the Corporation Act 2001, considering the observations that are made Mason J and the changes under the 1980 Act, few variations were made regarding the market rigging and the false market provisions. There were few amendments that were made to section 998 of the corporation Act 2001. However, again the market rigging and the false trading provisions were amended by the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 (Cth). The main changes that are brought in are that civil penalty provisions are made under Part 9.4B which includes few misconduct provisions inclusive of market rigging and false trading in (section 1041B of the corporation Act 2001) This change has reflect a doubt that it is very troublesome and expensive for the law to be applied by applying criminal standard of proof and it is more efficient and appropriate to apply the civil sanctions. Thus, now civil case can be brought which is based on the violation of section 1041B (1) by complying with civil standards of the balance of probabilities and there is no need for the establishment of any kind of fault or intention. Now if there is violation of section 1041 B (1) then a liability of @ $200,000 be imposed to an individual and @ $1 million for a body corporate. Thus, the leading case of North V Marra Developments Ltd and with the current reforms that are brought in then there is no need for the establishment of any kind of fault or intention. Ann O'Connell (2013) Protecting the Integrity of Securities Markets — What is an ‘Artificial Price’?: DPP (Cth) v JM, Melbourne Law School. Emma Armson (2009) False Trading and Market Rigging in Australia,   Corporate Law Teachers Association Conference, ANU College of Law. E.T. Fisher &Co. Pty. Ltd. v. English Scottish and Australian Bank Ltd.  (1940) 64 CLR 84 North V Marra Developments Ltd (1981). Scott v. Brown, Doering, McNab &Co.  (1892) 2 QB 724 Jade (2017) North V Marra Developments Ltd (1981) (Online). Available at: https://jade.io/article/66955. Accessed on 1st October 2017. Looking for an answer 'who will do my essay for cheap',