Time, Power and Fairness: The Discipline Behind Snell v Glatis
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Shareholder & Partnership › Snell v Glatis (No 4) [2021] NSWCA 42
Published: 16 November 2025 | Reviewed: 17 November 2025
(3-minute read)
Case Summary - What the Court Actually Decided
Snell v Glatis (No 4) [2021] NSWCA 42 sits in the middle of a long-running corporate oppression dispute between the Snell and Glatis interests. After years of findings that company funds were misused, loans extended imprudently, and directors behaved oppressively, the Court of Appeal had already ordered the winding up of the companies unless settlement could be reached.
By early 2021, the parties had negotiated for months. They had already received two extensions. They now sought another - this time until April.
But the Court took a different view.
Leeming JA refused to grant further indulgence without proper evidence, emphasising:
negotiations alone are not enough
corporate disputes involving winding up affect the public, not just the parties
s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act demands speed, proportionality and justified expense
consent orders do not bypass the Court’s responsibility to ensure fairness
When the Court examined fresh management accounts, a new concern emerged: an apparent $3 million “write-off” involving a developer who had benefited from earlier improper advances.
This raised an alarm. Was value being dissipated while the companies awaited winding up?
Only after further affidavits clarified the accounting treatment, and after the parties demonstrated concrete, near-final settlement documents, did the Court grant a short extension.
The core principle was unmistakable:
Delay must be justified with evidence, not convenience.
Why This Judgment Still Matters
Every leader, founder, and executive eventually faces the same tension:
When is it reasonable to wait, and when does waiting become harmful?
In Snell v Glatis, delay wasn’t inherently wrong. It was the lack of transparency that created risk:
opaque financial entries
insufficient explanation of steps taken
requests for more time without detail
private expectations clashing with public accountability
Today, the same pattern appears when businesses:
negotiate shareholder exits without documenting progress
discuss settlement “in principle” while deadlines pass
allow financial irregularities to sit unexplained
assume courts or regulators will tolerate delay if everyone “agrees”
The Court’s message applies directly to modern corporate life:
Good process is not optional — especially when money, governance and public interests collide.
Businesses must expect scrutiny whenever delay affects creditors, investors, employees or market confidence. Courts no longer rubber-stamp consensual adjournments. Consent is not a substitute for evidence.
How to Avoid the Same Trap - Through Cost Safety (One-Path Funding)
From the Client Protection Points, the highest-ranked and most relevant here is Cost Safety (One-Path Funding).
Why this one?
Because disputes like Snell v Glatis show how delay multiplies financial risk. When time stretches, parties face:
spiralling legal fees
duplication of work
financial decisions made in the shadows
pressure tactics where the best-funded party “waits out” the other
Cost Safety neutralises these risks.
By ensuring clients only fund one path - settlement or trial, but not both - the model removes the financial fear that often fuels delay. With fixed-fee oversight and escrow safeguards, strategy becomes disciplined:
decisions are made earlier
incentives align with resolution
documents are prepared efficiently
the risk of “death by delay” evaporates
If YOU save, WE win; if your case DRAGS, we lose.
That alignment echoes the spirit of Snell v Glatis: fairness is reinforced when incentives steer parties toward clarity, not drift.
Reflection
In Snell v Glatis, the Court made one truth unmistakable: delay without evidence erodes fairness and weakens trust. The same is true outside the courtroom.
When you protect your time, your process and your cost structure, you protect your power.
If you want your dispute strategy to reflect this discipline - early clarity, clean incentives and a single funded path - our model is designed precisely for that.
Understand how removing duplicated legal spend helps you prevent delay from becoming a leverage tactic.
Request a Confidential Call
If delay is becoming a pressure point in your matter, speak with us confidentially before it escalates into unnecessary cost or risk.
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
