R. MURRAY CASE

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30211, 16 August 1963, Page 17

R. MURRAY CASE

Directors In Court (NX. Press Assn.—Copyright) MELBOURNE, August 14. Mr Justice Hudson Mid in the Victorian Supreme Court today that on the evidence there was no question of dishonesty on the part of two former Reid Murray directors who were fined in the City Court In May. The two men were Robert Leslie Montgomery, of Balwyn, anad Philip Thomas Kelynack, of Bundoora. They had asked the Court to review the decision of Mr R. K. Hundspeth, S.M., who found they were guilty of breaches of the Companies Act because annual meetings were not held in 1962 and annual returns were not submitted to the Registrar of Companies. Montgomery was fined £4O on four charges relating to Reid Murray Holdings, Ltd., and Reid Murray Acceptance, Ltd., and Kelynack was fined £2O on two charges relating to Reid Murray Holdings. The petitioners claimed they were not “officers in default” under the act, that the charges should have been dismissed, and that the Magistrate erred in law.

Mr N. Burbank, Q.C., counsel for Montgomery and Kelynack, said his clients were outside directors and not executive officers. Most of the other eight directors of Reid Murray Holdings were executive officers. Mr Burbank said that in October, a directors’ meeting fixed December 20 as the date of the annual meeting. This resolution was rescinded in November when the Victorian managingdirector, Kenneth Norman Wilkinson, said it would be impossible to get necessary material ready in time. Wilkinson said the best thing to do was to cancel the meeting, Mr Burbank said. The Judge said he had to decide Whether the petitioners knew the action was against the best interest of the company. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.