Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,GUMMOW, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJMatter No M128/2010EQUUSCORP PTY LTD (FORMERLY EQUUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD)  APPELLANTANDIAN ALEXANDER HAXTON  RESPONDENTMatter No M129/2010EQUUSCORP PTY LTD (FORMERLY EQUUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD)  APPELLANTANDROBERT SAMUEL BASSAT  RESPONDENTMatter Nos M130/2010, M131/2010 & M132/2010EQUUSCORP PTY LTD (FORMERLY EQUUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD)  APPELLANTANDCUNNINGHAM'S WAREHOUSE SALES PTY LTD  RESPONDENTEquuscorp Pty Ltd v HaxtonEquuscorp Pty Ltd v BassatEquuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd[2012] HCA 78 March 2012M128/2010, M129/2010, M130/2010, M131/2010 & M132/2010ORDERIn each appeal, the order of the Court is:Appeal dismissed with costs.On appeal from the Supreme Court of VictoriaRepresentationB W Walker SC with R M Peters for the appellant in each matter (instructed by Lander & Rogers Lawyers)J D Merralls QC with M D Rush for the respondents in M129/2010, M131/2010 and M132/2010 (instructed by Hillhouse Burrough McKeown Pty Ltd)M R Pearce SC with M J Campbell for the respondents in M128/2010 and M130/2010 (instructed by Hillhouse Burrough McKeown Pty Ltd)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSEquuscorp Pty Ltd v HaxtonEquuscorp Pty Ltd v BassatEquuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty LtdRestitution − Restitution of benefits derived from unenforceable or illegal contracts − Recovery of money paid as money had and received − Respondents invested in tax driven blueberry farming schemes − Respondents borrowed funds to pay farm management fees − Each investment a "prescribed interest" under Companies Code of each respondent's home State ("Code")...