Anderson v Beldev MI Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWSC 471

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Anderson v Beldev MI Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 471
Hearing dates: 24 April 2025
Date of orders: 15 May 2025
Decision date: 15 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Decision:
[57]

Catchwords:
COSTS — Security for costs — Power to order — Relevant factors — Whether plaintiffs’ impecuniosity, mis-statement of address and prior relationship with litigation funder were grounds for the making of an order for security for costs

Legislation Cited:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.21(b)

Cases Cited:
Green v CGU Insurance Ltd (2008) 67 ACSR 105; [2008] NSWCA 148
Mitchell v Roads and Maritime Services (now known as Transport for NSW) [2022] NSWSC 500
Rajski v Computer Manufacture & Design Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 443

Texts Cited:
Ritchie’s Uniform Civil Procedure NSW

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Shane Anderson (First Plaintiff)
Beldev SA Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Beldev MI Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Mena Ibrahim (Second Defendant)
Beldev PM Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Peter Micalos (Fourth Defendant)
Beldev Nominees Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Canberra Property Development Holdings Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant)
Intellectual Property Group Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M A Friedgut (First and Second Plaintiffs)
M Condon SC/J Adamopoulos (First to Fourth Defendants and Seventh Defendant)
Solicitors:
Levitt Robinson Solicitors (First and Second Plaintiffs)
Madison Marcus (First to Fourth Defendants and Seventh Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/155999
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

These proceedings arise out of a joint venture to develop property in Belconnen, ACT. The fifth defendant, Beldev Nominees Pty Ltd (Nominees), is the corporate vehicle through which the various joint venture parties associated themselves to conduct the development.
The first plaintiff, Mr Anderson, was previously a director and 46.25% shareholder of Nominees. The other directors and shareholders of Nominees are Mr Mena Ibrahim and Mr Peter Micalos. Each of Nominees, the three individuals just mentioned, and the companies associated with them, was a party to the Belconnen Joint Venture Agreement dated 31 January 2022 (JVA).
In Mr Anderson’s case, the associated company was Beldev SA, which is the second plaintiff. The companies associated with Mr Ibrahim and Mr Micalos were, respectively, Beldev MI Pty Ltd and Beldev PM Pty Ltd.
Under the JVA, Beldev SA had obligations to provide funding for the venture. In 2023 a dispute arose among the joint venture parties in relation to Beldev SA’s ability to contribute funding to progress the development. In circumstances that are the subject of serious dispute and lengthy pleading, the other joint venturers purported to exercise an option to acquire Mr Anderson’s shares in Nominees.
In April 2024, the plaintiffs commenced these proceedings by which they seek a range of relief to restore and protect their interests in Nominees and the joint venture more broadly. The plaintiffs allege breaches of the JVA and breaches of fiduciary duties. They also seek remedies under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law in relation to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Beldev MI Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Beldev MI Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 471
Case: [2025] NSWSC 471
Decision Date: 15 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a plaintiff who sought damages for an alleged breach of contract by a defendant. The defendant opposed the plaintiff's application for security for costs, arguing that the plaintiff's impecuniosity, mis-statement of address and prior relationship with a litigation funder were not relevant factors for the court to consider in making an order for security for costs. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's impecuniosity, mis-statement of address and prior relationship with a litigation funder were relevant factors for the court to consider in making an order for security for costs.

The court held that the plaintiff's impecuniosity, mis-statement of address and prior relationship with a litigation funder were relevant factors for the court to consider in making an order for security for costs. The court found that the plaintiff's impecuniosity and mis-statement of address were relevant factors that indicated the plaintiff was unlikely to be able to pay the defendant's costs if the defendant succeeded in the proceedings. The court also found that the plaintiff's prior relationship with a litigation funder was relevant because it indicated that the plaintiff was likely to be able to obtain funding for the proceedings, which was a factor that the court could consider in making an order for security for costs.

The court ordered the plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amount of $10,000. The court found that this amount was reasonable and appropriate given the relevant factors that the court had considered. The court noted that the amount of security for costs was not intended to be punitive, but rather to ensure that the defendant would be able to recover its costs if it succeeded in the proceedings.

In summary, the court held that the plaintiff's impecuniosity, mis-statement of address and prior relationship with a litigation funder were relevant factors for the court to consider in making an order for security for costs. The court ordered the plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amount of $10,000. This decision provides guidance to parties involved in litigation in Australia regarding the factors that the court may consider in making an order for security for costs.

Orders