Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Jeffrie v. Hendriksen, 2013 NSSC 50

 

Date: 20130226

Docket:  Hfx No. 346079

Registry: Halifax

 

 

Between:

 

Roderick Jeffrie

 

Applicant

 

v.

 

Anthony Hendriksen, Inland Marine Services Limited

and Three Ports Fisheries Limited

 

Respondents

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

 

 

Judge:                            The Honourable Justice Michael J. Wood

 

Heard:                           July 3, 4, 5, 6, 25, 26 and 27, 2012, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Final Written

Submissions:                   September 14, 2012

 

Decision:                        February 26, 2013

 

Subject:                          Evidence - Use of discovery and the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

 


 

Evidence - Use of prior judicial opinions of witness credibility.

 

Contracts - Enforceability of verbal agreement to purchase shares.

 

Corporations - Oppression - Actions that constitute oppressive conduct                  

 

Summary:                      Shareholders in company had a falling out.  They had multiple meetings to discuss the purchase of the plaintiff=s shares.  The parties reached a verbal agreement, but the transaction was not completed.  Plaintiff sued for enforcement of the agreement.  As an alternative, plaintiff alleged oppressive conduct by failure to provide accurate financial information and consult on business decisions.  Plaintiff was president and director of the company

 

Issue:                    (1)     Did the parties reach a verbal agreement and, if so, is it enforceable?

 

(2)     Did the defendants engage in oppressive conduct and, if so, what remedy should be given?        

 

Result:                           The parties agreed on the essential terms for the purchase of the plaintiff=s shares, but this was subject to preparation of a written agreement.  The written agreement was never concluded, and so no legally enforceable contract came into existence.

 

The plaintiff=s complaints about lack of financial information and consultation did not amount to oppression.  As president, he was entitled to have the information, but took no steps to obtain it.

 

Application was dismissed.

 


 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.