Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 2)

The applicants in Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 2) sought to amend their originating application and statement of claim to include new causes of action, join additional respondents, and serve these respondents in India. The Federal Court of Australia granted the applications, enabling the determination of related disputes and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The applicants alleged that the Pearls scheme operated by the respondents was a Ponzi scheme, promising unsustainable returns to investors. The court found that the evidence established a prima facie case against all respondents, including those to be served in India.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their pleadings, join additional respondents, and serve those respondents in India. The applicants argued that the amendments would not cause prejudice to the respondents, and that joinder was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court found that the amendments would not cause prejudice, and that joinder would enable the determination of related disputes. The applicants also sought leave to serve the additional respondents in India under the Hague Convention. The court found that service by this method was appropriate, given the respondents' domicile in India.

The court granted the applications, allowing the applicants to amend their pleadings, join additional respondents, and serve those respondents in India. The court found that the evidence established a prima facie case against all respondents, including those to be served in India. The applicants' costs of the application were to be costs in the proceeding.

In summary, the court granted the applicants' applications to amend their pleadings, join additional respondents, and serve those respondents in India. The court found that the amendments would not cause prejudice to the respondents, and that joinder was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court also found that service by the Hague Convention method was appropriate, given the respondents' domicile in India. The evidence established a prima facie case against all respondents, including those to be served in India.