Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 4)

In Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 4), the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether to appoint a referee to assist in resolving a dispute involving allegations of a Ponzi scheme conducted in India. The case involved a closed class representative proceeding brought by the Janlok applicants against the respondents, MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd and Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited (India), relating to the alleged unauthorised collective investment scheme in India. The core of the applicants' case was that more than $9 billion had been invested by 58.5 million people, and that the respondents had used funds from the scheme to purchase properties, including the Sheraton Mirage on the Gold Coast. The applicants sought a reference to the court to obtain answers to specific questions concerning Indian domestic law.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appointment of a referee under section 54A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 would assist in determining the rights and duties of the statutory body under foreign law, and whether such an appointment was consistent with the overarching purpose of the court as set out in section 37M of the same Act. The Janlok applicants opposed the appointment of a referee. The court had to consider the history and importance of references in commercial causes and whether, in this case, appointing a referee would facilitate a just, efficient, timely, and cost-effective resolution of the dispute.

The court found that the appointment of a referee was appropriate in the circumstances, as it would assist in obtaining answers to the questions concerning Indian domestic law, which were crucial to determining the rights and duties of the parties involved. The court noted that the overarching purpose of the court, as set out in section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, was to achieve just, efficient, timely, and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. The court concluded that the appointment of a referee was consistent with this purpose and would facilitate the resolution of the dispute. Accordingly, the court made orders for the appointment of a referee to report on the relevant questions.

The court ordered that the questions set out in the annexure be referred to a referee for an inquiry, with the referee to make a report to the court. The reference was to commence by 26 September 2017 or such other date as ordered by the referee. The court also made orders concerning the conduct of the reference, the participation of the parties, and the liability for the referee's fees. The matter was listed for a further case management hearing on 26 September 2017.