Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd

The case of Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd involved an application by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to join the proceedings as a party. The existing applicants opposed SEBI’s application to join. The court had to determine the scope of rule 9.05 and rule 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) in relation to the application by a non-party to intervene and the discretionary considerations involved in granting such an application. The court also needed to consider whether the grant of leave to intervene should be conditional upon SEBI being granted leave to intervene in any relevant separate proceeding that SEBI institutes or supports.

The court concluded that it was not necessary for SEBI’s application to be conditional upon being granted leave to intervene in any relevant separate proceeding. The issues in any separate proceeding might be entirely unconnected with the applicants and could be determined if, and when, SEBI commenced any separate proceeding. The court found that SEBI’s application for joinder must be dismissed. However, SEBI should be given leave to intervene. The decision on whether SEBI should later be joined as an applicant or as a respondent might depend on how the proceeding progressed. It may be most efficient and convenient for SEBI to commence its own proceeding, which might be consolidated with the present proceeding.

The court decided that the costs of the application should be reserved between SEBI and the applicants to be dealt with in light of later developments in the conduct of this and related proceedings by the applicants and SEBI. There should be no order as to the costs of the application in relation to the respondents. The court considered this to be the first interlocutory application in this proceeding and noted that numerous other interlocutory applications were foreshadowed. However, the issues did not currently appear to be overly complex, and the conduct of the litigation by the solicitors and their cooperation had so far been encouraging, suggesting that legal costs may not become disproportionate.

The court made the following orders: 1. The application by SEBI to be joined as a party be dismissed. 2. The cost of the application be reserved between SEBI and the applicants. 3. There be no order as to costs of the application in relation to the respondents. 4. SEBI have leave to intervene in the proceedings.