Case Study of Schwartz-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Question: Complete a Law Report Case Study of Schwartz. Answer: Facts of the case: Application under section 206G of the Corporations Act 2001 was made by Mr. Schwartz on 7 August 2007, for the purpose of granting leave to manage the proprietary company. This company was registered under the Act and named as Baby belle Pty Ltd. Application made by Mr. Schwartz also applied for the leave to appoint as director of the Baby belle. However, it must be noted that application was not made as per the terms of the issue. Legal issues: The main issue related to this case is whether it is possible to give leave to Schwartz under Section 206G of the Corporation Act 2001, for the purpose of managing the specific corporation named as Baby belle? It must be noted that, Mr. Schwartz wants leave for appointing in Baby belle as director, but application made by them was not made as per the terms of the issue. Issue involved in this case was complicated in nature because it involves charges of early prosecution related to Mr. Schwartz. Law: Legal rules related to this case are stated in the Corporation Act 2001. Case mainly involves rules stated below: Section 206G (1) of the Corporation Act 2001 states that, in case any was person disqualified for managing the operations of the Company, then such person has right to apply to the Court for granting leave to manage a corporation, specific types of corporation, or any particular corporation if ASIC does not disqualify such person. Mr. Schwartz made application under clause c of this section for the purpose of managing Baby belle. Section 206B (1) states that, person is disqualified from managing the corporation if such person was previously involve in any offence which involves dishonesty and imprisonment for at least 3 months. In the present case, Plaintiff was engaged in the offense stated in section 206B (1), and also convicted for the period of 5 years. This case also involves Section 206A (1). As per this section if person is disqualified by the Act for the purpose of managing the corporation then such person commits offence if such person participate in decision making process or provide instructions, etc. Decision of the case: Application made by Mr. Schwartz was dismissed by the Court. Court stated that evidence provided by Mr. Schwartz was unjustified because of the following reasons: Summary related to evidence raised some serious issues such as whether section 206A was contravened by Mr. Schwartz and whether he continuously contravenes this section. Court also stated that Mr. Schwartz engaged in conduct which was disqualified and includes offences related to dishonesty. Judge further stated that, he must review the facts of the case presented before him, and he was bound to apply the principles stated above for the purpose of determining the issue whether it was right for the Court to grant leave to Mr. Schwartz. Judge further stated that on the basis of current material, Court was not bound to grant leave for managing the Babybelle. It must be noted that, Mr. Schwartz can make a fresh application to the Court, if any evidences related to the stated issues are available. References: Corporation Act 2001- Section 206G. Corporation Act 2001- Section 206A. Corporation Act 2001- Section 206B.