Essay About Mr. Mr De Oliveira Behavior And Mr De Oliveiraon

Plantiff: Mr. Nassar
Summary: Plantiff: Mr. NassarHe claimed that the other director members of company Mr. Grasso and Mr. Mr De Oliveira behavior was inappropriate and unjust to himDefandant: Mr De OliveiraOn 9 November, 2007 , a physical altercation(fight) happened between Mr Nassar and Mr De Oliveira. Police was also called to settle the altercation. The reason of the altercation was the treatment with an employee of the company. Thereafter, they held grudges for each other and their behavior changed and that effected  that normal functioning of the company. Mr Grasso: he tried to settle the conflicts between the Mr Nassar and Mr De Oliveira and acted as a moderator between the two but he wasn’t successful to do so. On 8 February 2008, Mr De Oliveira, as a director of IPG, gave notice calling a general meeting of the company to be held on 7 March 2008 for the purpose of considering a resolution to remove Mr Nassar as a director. He gave an identical notice in respect of GroupThe undertakings given on 3 March 2008 included undertakings by Mr De Oliveira and Mr Grasso not to deal with real property of the companies without prior notice to Mr Nassar and undertakings concerning the making of company contracts otherwise than in the ordinary course of business. There was an undertaking by Mr Nassar that he would not attend the business premises except during normal business hours and after giving 12 hours notice to Mr De Oliveira and Mr Grasso. Mr Nassar did, from time to time after 3 March 2008, attend the business premises in accordance with these arrangements. He acknowledges that he was allowed access to such books and records as he required and was given photocopies of any he wished to take away. He was not, however, given direct access to the computers.Another Conflicting EventMr Nassar visited the business premises on about 15 December 2008. Mrs De Oliveira was there. In a capacity he describes in an affidavit as “an accounts payable clerk”, she asked him to countersign a number of cheques so that company debts could be paid. He declined to sign. He says in his affidavit that he did so because of the pendency of these proceedings. A different explanation was given by Mr Nassar in cross-examination:“I refused to do that because I didnt know what the cheques were for. I had not been involved in the day-to-day running of the business. I couldnt clarify anything in the business. I was handed a stash of cheques and asked – the exact words were: “My husband has asked you to sign these cheques, will you sign them?” I said: “No, I dont know what theyre about. I will speak to my solicitor”. At that time I had been picking up accounts all the way through, and I said in open forum, in the middle of the drafting room, in front of Mr Peter Richardson, Mr Woodridge and Olando, this company I believed is trading insolvent, and I will not be signing that. I went outside and I rang Esplins. That is exactly what happened.”