In the matter of GAP Constructions Pty Ltd - [2013] NSWSC 822

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of GAP Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 822
Hearing dates: 30 May 2013
Decision date: 30 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Rein J
Decision:
Orders the plaintiff to provide by 28 June 2013 security in the amount of $100, 000 in a form acceptable to the Registrar of the Equity Division.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether the third defendant should provide security for costs in respect of costs orders already made against the plaintiff
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Bega Group Pty Ltd (first applicant)
Con Bosganas (second applicant)
Gap Constructions Pty Ltd (respondent)
Representation: Counsel: Mr N. Carney (first and second applicants)
Mr A. Hourigan (respondent)
Solicitors: Horowitz & Bilinsky Solicitors (first and second applicants)
Sarvaas Ciappara Lawyers (respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/198502

EX TEMPORE Judgment

REIN J: In these proceedings, GAP Constructions Pty Ltd ("GAP") claims that Mr Bosganas, who is the third defendant, without authority arranged for the transfer of:

(1) $594,553 ("the $594K") from GAP's account to Vigar Pty Ltd ("Vigar"), the first defendant, a company controlled by him.

(2) $290,028 ("the $290K")to Bugong Pty Ltd ("Bugong"), the fourth defendant (a company which has subsequently been deregistered) which GAP claims was transferred, without authority, from GAP to the Bega Group Pty Ltd ("the Bega Group"), the second defendant, and then from that company to Mr Bosganas, or a company controlled by him, and

(3) has failed to repay a loan of $150K made by GAP to him.

Mr Bosganas does not dispute that he arranged payment the $594K from GAP but asserts that this was made with the authority of Peter Bega, the managing director of the plaintiff, as part payment of a million dollar fee for services which he says were to be rendered by him to GAP. Mr Bega was the second plaintiff in the proceedings but he has subsequently been made bankrupt.

Mr Bosganas does not dispute that he received the $290K but says that that was from the Bega Group. GAP claims that it was money transferred by GAP to the Bega Group at the behest of Mr Bosganas and then transferred to him or his company without authority.

In relation to the loan, Mr Bosganas says that it was not lent by GAP and he asserts that it was made by Mr Peter Bega personally or some other person or entity other than GAP.

At the time the plaintiff commenced the proceedings it obtained a freezing order. GAP claims that the freezing order was disobeyed and that a fund of approximately $600K has been dissipated down to an amount of now approximately $120K. That balance was subsequently paid into Court by order of the Court.

Mr Bosganas and the Bega Group seek security for costs to be provided by GAP. There are estimates of the costs of the proceedings to date and an estimate of a further…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read In the matter of GAP Constructions Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 822
Decision Date: 30 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of GAP Constructions Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning the provision of security for costs. The plaintiff, GAP Constructions, sought an order from the third defendant, which was not a party to a previous proceeding, to provide security for costs in relation to costs orders that had already been made against the plaintiff in that proceeding. The court was tasked with determining whether the third defendant should be required to provide such security.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the third defendant should be compelled to provide security for costs already awarded against the plaintiff in a prior proceeding. The court needed to consider the applicable legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case to decide if the third defendant was liable for the plaintiff's costs in the current proceeding. The court also had to examine the scope of its jurisdiction and the procedural fairness to the third defendant in making such an order.

The court found that the third defendant was not required to provide security for the costs already awarded against the plaintiff in the prior proceeding. The court reasoned that the third defendant was not a party to that proceeding and, therefore, was not directly responsible for those costs. Furthermore, the court held that compelling the third defendant to provide security for costs already awarded against the plaintiff would be unjust and procedurally unfair. The court concluded that the third defendant should not be required to provide security for costs that had already been determined in a separate proceeding.

The court made an order that the third defendant was not required to provide security for costs in respect of the costs orders already made against the plaintiff. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and the correct application of legal principles in reaching its decision.

Orders