Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd v Patial
[2025] FCA 884
•4 August 2025
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd v Patial [2025] FCA 884
File number(s): NSD 970 of 2025
NSD 1041 of 2025
NSD 1042 of 2025
NSD 1043 of 2025
NSD 1044 of 2025Judgment of: GOODMAN J Date of judgment: 4 August 2025 Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application to set aside creditors statutory demands served on four companies – whether the companies applied “to the Court for an order setting aside a statutory demand” within the meaning of s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in circumstances where, as co-plaintiffs, they filed one originating application to set aside the demands – whether individual proceedings are required – held individual proceedings not required
CORPORATIONS – application to set aside creditors statutory demands served on four companies – whether service of the originating application and affidavit in support was effected for the purposes of s 459G and whether personal service was required – held service was effected and personal service not required – unmeritorious position taken as to service despite receipt of documents having been acknowledged by recipient – application of the “effective informal service rule” – service electronically and in a physical form under s 110C and 110D of the Act
CORPORATIONS – creditors statutory demands – whether genuine dispute established – where the legal foundation of the alleged debt not clear – where quantum of the alleged debts has changed several times – where the existence of debts in dispute in another proceeding – genuine dispute established
CORPORATIONS – creditors statutory demands – whether the demands should be set aside for another reason – held that the demands should be set aside as an abuse of process
COSTS – costs payable on an indemnity basis in circumstances where unmeritorious position taken with respect to service, where the existence of a genuine dispute was obvious and where the demands were not withdrawn, and the winding up proceedings were commenced and continued despite notice of fundamental problems
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 9, 105A, 110C, 110D, 110E, 459A, 459E, 459G, 459H, 459P, 467A, 470, 1322
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 394
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37N
Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023 (Cth)
Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth), r 1.3
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 8.21, 9.02, Sch 1
Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW)
Cases cited: A & M Short Pty Ltd v Prestige Residential Marketing Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 872; (2005) 54 ACSR 760
Bioaction Pty Ltd v Ogborne, in the matter of Bioaction Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 436; (2022) 402 ALR 542
Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969
CA Associates Pty Ltd v Fini Group Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 31
Carter v Australian Securities Investments Commission [2019] FCAFC 229; (2019) 274 FCR 677
Clough v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 801; (1993) 46 FCR 225
Createc Pty Ltd v Design Signs Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 85; (2009) 71 ACSR 602
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] 2 VR 495; (1995) 15 ACSR 771
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] HCA 43; (1995) 184 CLR 265
Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785
Falgat Constructions Pty Ltd v Equity Australia Corporation Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 259
Femley Pty Ltd v Salken Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 334; (1999) 17 ACLC 828
Heirloom Vineyards Wine Co Pty Ltd v Sante Wines Pty Ltd [2018] SASCFC 56; (2018) 128 ACSR 212
Hope v Hope 4 De GM & G 328; 43 ER 534
Howship Holdings Pty Ltd v Leslie (1996) 41 NSWLR 542; (1996) 21 ACSR 440
In the matter of Modern Wholesale Jewellery Pty Ltd; in the matter of Global Austral Pty Ltd; In the matter of Modern Wholesale Jewellery Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 236
In the matter of New Wilkie Energy Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 942
Isaco Pty Ltd v Davey [2003] NSWSC 1043; (2003) 47 ACSR 483
Liberty Oil Convenience Pty Ltd v Golden Roo Company Ltd [2024] FCA 757
Mohamed v Farah [2004] NSWSC 482
MSA Renex Corp Pty Ltd v Create Environment Pty Ltd [2021] VSCA 178
Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Westpoint Constructions Pty Ltd, in the matter of Westpoint Constructions Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 808; (2005) 23 ACLC 1384
Panel Tech Industries (Australia) Pty Limited v Australian Skyreach Equipment Pty Limited (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 896
Parklands Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Kowari Motors Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 98; [2004] 1 Qd R 140
Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 219
Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd t/as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2023] FCAFC 155
Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2022] FCA 662
Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants (No 4) [2024] FCA 179
Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2025] FCA 113
Pino v Prosser [1967] VR 835
Prateek Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd T/A Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2021] FWC 4167
Prateek Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd T/as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2021] FWCFB 6055
Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aldridge Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 681; (1997) 76 FCR 452
Thomson v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2024] QCA 73
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 189 Date of last submission/s: 23 July 2025 Date of hearing: 18 July 2025 Counsel for the Plaintiffs
in proceeding NSD970/2025:Mr V Misra Solicitor for the Plaintiffs
in proceeding NSD970/2025:Vexo Lawyers Counsel for the Defendant
in proceeding NSD970/2025:The defendant appeared in person Counsel for the Plaintiff
in proceeding NSD1041/2025:The plaintiff appeared in person Counsel for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1041/2025:Mr V Misra Solicitor for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1041/2025:Vexo Lawyers Counsel for the Plaintiff
in proceeding NSD1042/2025:The plaintiff appeared in person Counsel for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1042/2025:Mr V Misra Solicitor for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1042/2025:Vexo Lawyers Counsel for the Plaintiff
in proceeding NSD1043/2025:The plaintiff appeared in person Counsel for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1043/2025:Mr V Misra Solicitor for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1043/2025:Vexo Lawyers Counsel for the Plaintiff
in proceeding NSD1044/2025:The plaintiff appeared in person Counsel for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1044/2025:Mr V Misra Solicitor for the Defendants
in proceeding NSD1044/2025:Vexo Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 970 of 2025 BETWEEN: KAILASH LAWYERS PTY LTD ACN 604 582 550
First Plaintiff
KOALA INVESTMENT PROPERTY PTY LTD ACN 603 793 308
Second Plaintiff
KUBER INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD ACN 602 779 199 (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Plaintiff
AND: PRATEEK PATIAL
Defendant
ORDER MADE BY:
GOODMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The plaintiffs have leave to file an amended originating process containing the following amendments to the originating process:
On the facts stated in the supporting Affidavit of Amit Pall sworn/affirmed
1617 June 2025:1. The First Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the First Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.2.The Second Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Second Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.3.The Third Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Third Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.4.The Fourth Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Second Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
2.The amended originating process be filed within 48 hours of these orders.
3.Pursuant to s 459H and s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served by the defendant on the first plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
4.Pursuant to s 459H and s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served by the defendant on the second plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
5.Pursuant to s 459H and s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served by the defendant on the third plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
6.Pursuant to s 459H and s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served by the defendant on the fourth plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
7.The defendant be restrained, prior to the final determination of proceeding NSD1016/2021, from serving a demand under s 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) upon any of the plaintiffs, without a prior grant of leave from this Court to do so.
8.The defendant pay the plaintiffs’ costs on an indemnity basis, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 1041 of 2025 BETWEEN: PRATEEK PATIAL
Plaintiff
AND: KAILASAM HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 158 712 433
Defendant
ORDER MADE BY:
GOODMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding be dismissed.
2.The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 1042 of 2025 BETWEEN: PRATEEK PATIAL
Plaintiff
AND: KAILASH LAWYERS PTY LTD ACN 604 582 550
Defendant
ORDER MADE BY:
GOODMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding be dismissed.
2.The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 1043 of 2025 BETWEEN: PRATEEK PATIAL
Plaintiff
AND: KOALA INVESTMENT PROPERTY PTY LTD ACN 603 793 308
Defendant
ORDER MADE BY:
GOODMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding be dismissed.
2.The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS
NSD 1044 of 2025 BETWEEN: PRATEEK PATIAL
Plaintiff
AND: KUBER INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD ACN 602 779 199
Defendant
ORDER MADE BY:
GOODMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceeding be dismissed.
2.The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
A. INTRODUCTION
[1]
B. BACKGROUND
[4]
B.1 The Agreement and events during the Agreement period
[5]
B.2 The 31 August 2020 invoices and a dispute raised
[12]
B.3 The Commission proceeding
[18]
B.4 Proceeding NSD1016/2021 and the initial statement of claim
[21]
B.5 The second iteration of the statement of claim
[27]
B.6 The Supreme Court and District Court proceedings
[34]
B.7 The bankruptcy notice
[38]
B.8 The prior demands
[39]
B.9 The 20 May 2025 invoices
[41]
B.10 Withdrawal of the prior demands and service of the demands
[46]
B.11 The third iteration of the statement of claim
[57]
B.12 Commencement of the proceeding NSD970/2025 to set aside the demands
[61]
B.13 Service of the originating application and affidavit in support
[68]
B.14 Commencement of the winding up proceedings
[73]
C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
[81]
D. THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION
[82]
E. HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF S 459G OF THE ACT BEEN MET FOR EACH DEMAND?
[91]
E.1 Has the company made an application to the Court (s 459G(1))?
[100]
E.2 Were the application and the supporting affidavit filed and served within 21 days after service of the demands (s 459G(2) and (3))?
[110]
E.2.1 Is personal service required?
[121]
E.2.2 Has service occurred?
[124]
E.2.2.1 Service by electronic communication
[128]
E.2.2.2 Physical service
[143]
E.3 Does the application seek an order setting aside the demand (s 459G(1))?
[147]
E.4 Is the affidavit filed with the application in truth an affidavit “supporting” the application to set aside the particular demand (s 459G(3)(a))?
[149]
E.5 Conclusion as to compliance with s 459G of the Act
[151]
F. SHOULD THE DEMANDS BE SET ASIDE?
[152]
F.1 Is there a genuine dispute?
[153]
F.2 Is there an abuse of process?
[173]
G. SHOULD THE COMPANIES BE WOUND UP?
[177]
H. OTHER ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE COMPANIES
[178]
I. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
[182]
J. COSTS
[185]
K. CONCLUSION
[189]
SCHEDULE TO [2025] FCA 884 - 20 MAY 2025 INVOICES AND AMOUNTS SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID, AND AMOUNT SAID TO BE OWING AS PER THE 29 MAY 2025 DEMANDS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GOODMAN J:
A. INTRODUCTION
These reasons for judgment deal with the latest chapter in a long-standing dispute between Mr Prateek Patial on the one hand and Mr Amit Pall on the other. The present chapter concerns:
(1)an application by four companies under the control of Mr Pall, in proceeding NSD970/2025, to set aside demands under s 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) dated 29 May 2025 and served on them by Mr Patial on 30 May 2025; and
(2)applications by Mr Patial across four proceedings to wind up the companies. Those four proceedings are numbered NSD1041/2025, NSD1042/2025, NSD1043/2025 and NSD1044/2025 (together, the winding up proceedings).
Proceeding NSD970/2025 and the winding up proceedings were heard together, with evidence in each proceeding being evidence in each of the other proceedings. That hearing took place on 18 July 2025. On 21 July 2025, the parties were invited to provide any further short submissions they wished to provide concerning Part 1.2AA of the Act, which appeared to me on reflection to be relevant, but which had not been addressed during the hearing. Such submissions were provided. However, the submissions of Mr Patial addressed topics beyond Part 1.2AA and I have not had regard to those submissions to the extent they travelled beyond Part 1.2AA.
For the reasons developed below, each demand should be set aside, and each of the applications by Mr Patial for the winding up of the companies should be dismissed. Further, an order preventing Mr Patial from serving further statutory demands upon the companies before the conclusion of proceeding NSD1016/2021 should be made.
B. BACKGROUND
Before addressing the questions for determination, it is necessary to set out in some detail some of the history of the dispute between Mr Patial on the one hand and Mr Pall and his companies on the other. The background set out below is taken from the evidence relied upon at the hearing, namely:
(1)for Mr Patial, (a) an affidavit affirmed by him on 15 July 2025 in proceeding NSD970/2025; (b) three affidavits affirmed by him on 15 July 2025 in each of the winding up proceedings; and (c) an affidavit affirmed by him on 25 June 2025 in each of the winding up proceedings;
(2)for the companies, (a) affidavits of Mr Pall affirmed on 17 June 2025 and 16 July 2025 in proceeding NSD970/2025; (b) an affidavit of Mr Gaurav Sareen, the solicitor for the companies, sworn on 28 July 2025 in proceeding NSD970/2025; (c) an affidavit of Ms Paulene Hill, a process server, affirmed on 23 June 2025 in proceeding NSD970/2025; and (d) an affidavit of Mr Pall affirmed on 28 June 2025 in each of the winding up proceedings;
(3)various exhibits to the above affidavits; and
(4)an extract from an affidavit made by Mr Pall in proceeding SYG2899/2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).
B.1 The Agreement and events during the Agreement period
Mr Pall is the sole director of the companies, namely:
(1)Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd, a company which trades as Kailash Lawyers;
(2)Koala Investments Property Pty Ltd;
(3)Kuber Investment Group Pty Ltd; and
(4)Kailasam Holdings Pty Ltd.
On 17 April 2019, Mr Patial and Kailash executed a document titled “Agreement for General Use”. Mr Patial is described as “Prateek” in the Agreement. Clauses 2, 4 and 5 of the Agreement provide (as written):
2. Operative provisions
(a)It is expressly understood and agreed between Prateek and Kailash that:
i)Prateek is going to undertake his supervised legal training with Kailash for 12 months (or any other time agreed between the parties) of the date of this agreement;
ii)Kailash has agreed to provide the supervised training in the legal areas the practice undertakes legal work;
iii)Kailash shall provide with essential infrastructure considered necessary at its discretion for this purpose;
iv)Prateek shall undertake all the work diligently, keeping utmost confidentiality of the clients and the work being undertaken;
v)Prateek shall work on the client files to gain diverse experiences;
vi)It is expressly understood and stated that the parties do not form an employer-employee relationship. Kailash do not owe any employer obligations towards Prateek including but not limited to remuneration, salary, superannuation etc. The pure and simple objective of this agreement for the parties is conduct and receive supervised training with certain benefits to both the parties arising out of this relationship.
vii)To provide training, infrastructure and related resources, Kailash shall charge 60% of the gross professional fee (excluding disbursements) generated by Prateek up to the total income of $100,000 per annum. Should the fee grow above $100,000.00 per annum in the increments of $10,000, the Kailash percentage shall decrease to 50% of the gross professional fee (excluding disbursements) on anything above $100,000, in the increments of $10,000;
viii)The term of this agreement is for one year from the date of this agreement. To provide certainty to the agreement, this is an essential term;
ix)Prateek will conducts itself in a proper, prudent, and professional manner that is required form a duly registered legal practitioner to operate in the circumstances. He will ensure that he fulfils the licencing and qualification requirements to legally perform his duties, including registration with law society, undergoing annual CPD points and strictly adhere to Solicitors Conduct Rules and code of ethics.
x)Both parties shall use their best endeavours to promote the business of the law practice; and
xi)Kailash reserves its right at its sole discretion and assessment of the factual circumstances to offer partnership in the legal practice on the terms decided at the end of the term.
…
4. Entire agreement
This agreement is the entire agreement and understanding between the parties on everything connected with the subject matter of this agreement, and supersedes any prior understanding, arrangement, representation or agreements between the parties as to the subject matter contained in this agreement.
5. Amendment
An amendment or variation to this agreement is not effective unless it is in writing and signed by all the parties.
(bold emphasis in original; italic emphasis added)
It is common ground that between about April 2019 and 28 August 2020 (Agreement period), Mr Patial performed work. However, there is a contest as to the company or companies for whom such work was done, what work was done, and the terms of any remuneration for such work.
Mr Patial contends that he provided:
(1)legal services as a solicitor to Kailash;
(2)services related to a logo (logo services), which were provided only to Kailasam; and
(3)a series of other services to all of the companies. I will refer to these other services – which related to information technology, distributing calendars, assembling furniture, removing old furniture, moving files to Kennards Storage, shifting furniture and a Deepawali Event – as the shared services.
It appears that during the Agreement period:
(1)the hourly rate charged by Kailash to its clients for work undertaken by solicitors (including Mr Patial) was $300.00 per hour plus GST; and
(2)Mr Patial rendered invoices to Kailash for legal services that he had provided (contemporaneous invoices). The contemporaneous invoices in evidence are all addressed to Kailash.
The companies contend that the only operative agreement or arrangement was the Agreement, pursuant to which Mr Patial was to and did provide services and receive remuneration in accordance with cl 2(a)(vii) of the Agreement.
The companies’ evidence, via Mr Pall, is that:
During his period of supervised legal training under the Agreement with Kailash, Mr. Patial would at generally regular intervals, render invoices for legal work completed to Kailash (Contemporary Invoices). The Contemporary Invoices Mr Patial rendered for legal work whilst the Agreement was on foot, and their covering emails are at … He was paid 40% of the amount of the unit cost as stated in the invoice, as per the Agreement. As we were a small, collegiate office, it would often be the case that my staff, including Mr Patial, would assist me with general office tasks which were on an unpaid basis, however, I would re‑imburse them for minor expenses incurred by them in assisting me, for example, see … where I reimbursed Mr Patial for minor expenses incurred in assisting me with general office tasks outside the scope of the Agreement.
Relevantly, there was no mention of any partial payment in the [contemporaneous invoices], which Mr Patial refers to in [the demand issued to Kailash]. Further, the [contemporaneous invoices] are all rendered to Kailash only. Further, the [the demand issued to Kailash] raises new invoices for legal work completed during the time of the Agreement which Mr Patial did not render during the time the Agreement was on foot.
(emphasis in original)
B.2 The 31 August 2020 invoices and a dispute raised
On 28 August 2020, Mr Pall purported to terminate the Agreement.
On 31 August 2020, Mr Patial sent to Mr Pall various documents including a series of invoices (31 August 2020 invoices). Mr Pall’s evidence is that those invoices were addressed only to Kailash; and this is consistent with the invoices that are in evidence. The 31 August 2020 invoices are summarised in the table below:
Description Full Name Unit Cost Rate Amount 1. Managing IT solutions for Kailash Lawyers and Consultants and Koala Invest Prateek Patial $64,000 100% $64,000 2. Assembling office new tables
Assembling Office Chairs
Removal of old tables, chairs and other unwanted office furniture in own personal carPrateek Patial $2,700 100% $2,700 3. Moving the office files from Parramatta Office to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville (2 Trips) in a personal car Prateek Patial $700 100% $700 4. Shifted Office
Swapping Kailash Lawyers and Consultants Office with Koala Invest
Shifting Office furniture on directions of Amit from Kailash to Kailash (sic)Prateek Patial $2,000 100% $2,000 5. Working at Deepawali Mela for Kailash Lawyers and Consultants, Rousehill (sic), Bella Vista and Strathfield
Numerous days and hours to prepare for the above events, including telephonic calls, buying materials etc.Prateek Patial $5,500 100% $5,500 Total $74,900
The 31 August 2020 invoices do not appear to identify how the unit cost has been calculated (including, for example, hourly rates).
No invoices rendered at this time for distributing calendars or for the logo services appear to be in evidence.
Mr Pall’s evidence is that:
Some of [the 31 August 2020 invoices] were purportedly for amounts for outstanding payments for IT work, Deepavali (sic) Event, Assembling Office New Furniture, Shifting Office Furniture, Storage Box and Adjustment. The amounts allegedly outstanding under these invoices are different to the amounts claimed in the [the demands and the 20 May 2025 invoices]. During the time the Agreement was on foot Mr Patial never invoiced Kailash for these items as there was no agreement or arrangement on foot for him to perform these services on a paid or remuneration basis. This was because it would often be the case that my staff, including Mr Patial, would assist me with general office tasks, such as those mentioned in at the beginning of this paragraph on an unpaid basis, bar minor expenses incurred by them in assisting me that I would reimburse them for …
(emphasis added)
(The 20 May 2025 invoices, which are discussed at [41]ff below, are relied upon by Mr Patial to found the demands.)
On 1 September 2020, Mr Pall wrote to Mr Patial:
…
Bank cheques
I note that few of the invoices were created on the last day of your employment. These invoices were created randomly and are frivolous, ridiculous, and baseless in nature and it appears the sole purpose of some of the invoices is to annoy, harass or achieve another wrongful purpose …
(emphasis in original)
B.3 The Commission proceeding
On 4 September 2020, Mr Patial filed an application pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) in the Fair Work Commission. Kailash was the only respondent to that application.
On 9 and 30 March, 20 April and 20 May 2021, Commissioner McKenna of the Commission heard the application and, on 6 August 2021, she dismissed it, essentially on the basis that Mr Patial was not, as he had contended, an employee of Kailash, in circumstances where the Agreement expressly provided that he was not an employee: Prateek Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd T/A Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2021] FWC 4167.
On 27 August 2021, Mr Patial sought leave to appeal the Commissioner’s decision. On 8 October 2021, a Full Bench of the Commission heard Mr Patial’s application for leave to appeal. On 24 November 2021, the Full Bench dismissed that application: see Prateek Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd T/A Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2021] FWCFB 6055.
B.4 Proceeding NSD1016/2021 and the initial statement of claim
On 29 September 2021, Mr Patial commenced proceeding NSD1016/2021 in this Court, by filing an originating application and a statement of claim. The respondents to that statement of claim are Kailash, Koala and Kuber.
Part F of that statement of claim includes an allegation that Mr Patial’s average hourly rate was $30.24. Part N of the statement of claim deals with the shared services and is, relevantly, in the following terms (as written):
N. Outstanding Payments for Additional Work including IT Services – Deepawali Event – Distributing Calendars – Assembling Office Furniture – Removing Office Furniture – Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville – Shifting Office Furniture …
N.1. IT Services
59.From 17 April 2019 to 26 August 2020, [Mr Patial] worked additional hours on an average of 20 hours per week to maintain and manage the staff computers for [the respondents].
60.From 17 April 2019 to 26 August 2020, [Mr Patial] did 1,420 hours.
N.2.Deepawali Event
61.On 12 June 2019 Mr Pall, told [Mr Patial] that he wanted to put the stall at the Hindu Diwali Mela for [the respondents].
Particulars
WhatsApp chat on 12 June 2019
62.From 12 June 2019 to about November 2019 for the Deepawali events [Mr Patial] worked an additional approximately 250 hours (worked extended hours from 6 am to 9 pm on the weekends to organise, arranged and work at the stalls):
a.On 13 October 2019 (Sunday) at Rouse Hill Town Centre New South Wales;
b.On 20 October 2019 (Sunday) at Bellavista Farms New South Wales; and
c.On 3 November 2019 (Sunday) at Strathfield Park, New South Wales.
N.3.Distributing Calendars
63.In late 2019, after the Deepawali event, approximately 3,500 fridge magnetic calendars were left, with the [respondents’] details.
64.Mr Pall told [Mr Patial] to distribute these magnetic calendars at Sikh Temple Glenwood New South Wales, Sydney Murugan Temple Mays Hill New South Wales, Hindu Temple Sri Mandir Auburn New South Wales and Sai Hindu Temple Regents Park New South Wales.
65.From December 2019 to about February 2020, [Mr Patial] spent approximately 100 hours distributing the magnetic calendars for [the respondents] at the above places.
N.4.Assembling Office Furniture
66.In or about February 2020, Mr Pall bought the new office furniture, including tables and chairs from the Officeworks, for [the respondents].
67.In March 2020, Mr Pall told [Mr Patial] to assemble the office furniture.
68.[Mr Patial] spent an average of approximately 30 hours assembling the office furniture.
N.5.Removing Old Office Furniture
69.In March 2020, Mr Pall told [Mr Patial] to remove the old office furniture of [the respondents].
70.[Mr Patial] used his car to remove the old furniture from the office and kept the old furniture in his garage for council pickups.
71.[Mr Patial] spent approximately 8 hours removing the old office furniture.
N.6.Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville
72.In or about June 2020, Mr Pall told [Mr Patial] to move the office files boxes of the [respondents’] leftovers from Deepawali event and banners to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville.
73.[Mr Patial] used his car and made two round trips from the office to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville.
74.[Mr Patial] spent approximately 8 hours moving the office files and materials for [the respondents].
N.7.Shifting Office Furniture
75.In May 2019, Mr Pall told [Mr Patial] to swap [Kailash’s] office space with [Koala’s] office space.
76.[Mr Patial] spent approximate 8 hours swapping the places and moving the furniture of [Kailash’s] office space with [Koala’s].
77.In or about July 2019, Mr Pall again told [Mr Patial] to reorganise [Kailash’s] office furniture. In the same room, including paralegal desks on the corner and solicitor tables on different sides.
78.[Mr Patial] spent approximate 6 hours reorganising the office furniture for [Kailash].
79.[Mr Patial] spent a total of approximate 14 hours shifting and reorganising the office furniture for [Kailash] and [Koala].
(emphasis in original)
The loss claimed for the alleged non-payment for the provision of these services is set out at [137] of the statement of claim:
137.And [Mr Patial] claims:
…
g.Unpaid payment of IT services for 1,420 hours $42,940.80
h.Unpaid payment of Deepawali Event for 250 hours $7,560.00
i.Unpaid payment of Distributing Calendars for 100 hours $3,024.00
j.Unpaid payment of Assembling Office Furniture for 30 hours $907.20
k.Unpaid payment of Removing office furniture for 8 hours $241.92
l.Unpaid payment of Moving Office Files Kennards $241.92
Storage Box Wentworthville for 8 hours
m.Unpaid payment of Shifting Office Furniture for 14 hours $423.36
…
The amounts claimed appear to be the product of: (1) the hours allegedly worked; and (2) an hourly rate of $30.24. The total of these amounts is $55,339.20 (1,830 x $30.24).
The statement of claim does not appear to refer to the logo services, perhaps because Kailasam is not named as a respondent.
On 9 June 2022, I made orders striking out the statement of claim in proceeding NSD1016/2021, with limited leave to replead (including with respect to the allegations in Part N of that statement of claim). My reasons for doing so are set out in Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2022] FCA 662 (Patial (No 1)). At [44] to [49] of Patial (No 1) I stated:
Part N (including the case pleaded against the second and third respondents)
44I consider Part N separately because it purports to plead an entitlement to remuneration for work done for each of the respondents.
45In Part N, the applicant pleads that between 17 April 2019 and 26 August 2020, he did additional work for [Kailash, Koala and Kuber] ([58]) and in particular:
(1)maintenance or management of staff computers ([59]-[60]);
(2)arranging and working at stalls at the Hindu Diwali Mela ([61]-[62]);
(3)distributing magnetic calendars at various temples ([63]-[65]);
(4)assembling office furniture ([66]-[68]);
(5)removing old office furniture ([69]-[71]);
(6)moving office files and other items to a storage facility ([72]-[74]); and
(7)shifting and re-organising office furniture ([75]-[79]) (for [Kailash and Koala] only).
46The manner in which Part N has been pleaded renders it difficult to determine the basis of the applicant’s claims against particular respondents.
47Reading Part N in the context of the whole of the Statement of Claim, it appears to be a claim that during the course of his employment by [Kailash], [Kailash] required the applicant to undertake additional work which work benefitted each of the respondents in the manner described above.
48Such a conclusion is supported by the following: the only employment relationship pleaded is as between the applicant and [Kailash]; the period 17 April 2019 to 26 August 2020 corresponds exactly to the period of the applicant’s alleged employment by [Kailash] (Part B, [19] and Part C, [29]); the reference to “additional work” in paragraph [58] which assumes the existence of extant work; and the amounts claimed for the additional work in paragraphs [137.g-m] being the product of the additional hours worked and the average hourly rate of $30.24 alleged to have been payable to the applicant by [Kailash] as part of their employee/employer relationship (Part F, [43]-[44]).
49Thus, Part N, as pleaded, is also reliant upon the proposition that the applicant was an employee of [Kailash]. It follows, for the reasons set out above, that it is an abuse of process and should be struck out.
(emphasis in original; the references to “the respondents” are to the respondents named in this initial iteration of the statement of claim)
B.5 The second iteration of the statement of claim
On 12 August 2022, Mr Patial filed an interlocutory application in proceeding NSD1016/2021 pursuant to which he sought leave to file a second iteration of his statement of claim. That application was placed in abeyance while Mr Patial’s appeal from Patial (No 1) was heard and determined. That appeal was dismissed: Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd t/as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2023] FCAFC 155 (Rares, Jackson and Halley JJ).
The second iteration of the statement of claim bears a particular email address used by Mr Patial (Mr Patial’s email address). It also includes Mr Pall and each of the companies as respondents. Part F of that statement of claim is, relevantly, in the following form:
F.Outstanding Payments for Additional Work including IT Services – Deepawali Event – Distributing Calendars – Assembling Office Furniture – Removing Office Furniture – Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville – Shifting Office Furniture …
74.From 17 April 2019 to 26 August 2020, [Mr Patial] did the following additional work for [the respondents].
F.1. IT Services
75.From 17 April 2019 to 26 August 2020, [Mr Patial] worked additional hours on an average of 20 hours per week to maintain and manage the staff computers for [the respondents].
76.From 17 April 2019 to 26 August 2020, [Mr Patial] did 1,420 hours for [the respondents].
77.On 31 August 2020, as per [Mr Pall’s] instruction, [Mr Patial] provided the IT services invoice to [Mr Pall] for the amount of $64,000.00.
78.The amount on the invoice is incorrect. The correct amount is 1,420 * $148.50 = $210,870.00.
79.[Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of $210,870.00 because [the respondents], didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for the IT work.
80.[Mr Patial] claims $210,870.00 from [the respondents].
F.2. Logo – [Kailasam’s] Logo
81.In or about August 2019, [Mr Pall] told [Mr Patial] to design the logo for [Kailasam].
82.[Kailash’s] paralegal …, assisted [Mr Patial] in designing the logo for [Kailasam].
83.In September 2019, [Mr Patial] purchased the logo maker application from his iPhone.
84.[Mr Pall] refunded the cost of purchasing the logo maker application to [Mr Patial].
85.[Mr Patial] spent approximately 10 hours designing [Kailasam’s] logos.
86.[Mr Pall] and [Kailasam] did not pay [Mr Patial] for designing the logos of [Kailasam].
87.[Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of 10 * $148.50 = $1,485.00 because [Mr Pall] and [Kailasam] didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for designing the logos.
88.[Mr Patial] claims $1,485.00 from [Mr Pall] and [Kailasam].
F.3. Deepawali Events
89.On 12 June 2019, [Mr Pall] told [Mr Patial] that he wanted to put the stall at the Hindu Diwali Mela for the [companies].
Particulars
WhatsApp chat on 12 June 2019
90.From 12 June 2019 to about November 2019 for the Deepawali events, [Mr Patial] worked an additional approximately 250 hours (worked extended hours from 6 am to 9 pm on the weekends to organise, arrange and work at the stalls);
a.On 13 October 2019 (Sunday) at Rouse Hill Town Centre, New South Wales;
b.On 20 October 2019 (Sunday) at Bellavista Farms, New South Wales; and
c.On 3 November 2019 (Sunday) at Strathfield Park, New South Wales.
91.On 31 August 2020, as per [Mr Pall’s] instruction, [Mr Patial] provided the Deepawali Event invoice to [Mr Pall] for the amount of $5,500.00.
92.The amount on the invoice is incorrect. The correct amount is 250 * $148.50 = $37,125.00.
93.[Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of $37,125.00 because [the respondents], didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for the work concerning Deepawali events.
94.[Mr Patial] claims $37,125.00 from [the respondents].
F.4. Distributing Calendars
95.After the Deepawali event, approximately 3,500 fridge magnetic calendars were left, with the [companies’] details.
Particulars
Magnetic Calendars
96.[Mr Pall] told [Mr Patial] to distribute these magnetic calendars at Sikh Temple Glenwood New South Wales, Sydney Murugan Temple Mays Hill New South Wales, Hindu Temple Sri Mandir Auburn New South Wales and Sai Hindu Temple Regents Park New South Wales.
97.From November 2019 to about February 2020, the Applicant spent approximately 100 hours distributing the magnetic calendars for the [companies] at the above places.
98.[Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of 100 * $148.50 = $14,850.00 because [the respondents], didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for distributing magnetic calendars.
99.[Mr Patial] claims $14,850.00 from [the respondents].
F.5. Assembling Office Furniture
100.In or about February 2020, [Mr Pall] purchased the new office furniture, including tables and chairs from Officeworks, for [the respondents].
101.[Mr Pall] told [Mr Patial] to assemble the office furniture.
102.[Mr Patial] spent an average of approximately 30 hours assembling the office furniture.
103.On 31 August 2020, as per [Mr Pall’s] instruction, [Mr Patial] provided the assembling new office furniture invoice to [Mr Pall] for the amount of $2,000.00.
104.The amount on the invoice is incorrect. The correct amount is 30 * $148.50 = $4,455.00.
105.[Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of $4,455.00 because [the respondents], didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for assembling new office furniture.
106.[Mr Patial] claims $4,455.00 from [the respondents].
F.6. Removing Old Office Furniture
107.[Mr Pall] told [Mr Patial] to remove the old office furniture of the [companies].
108.[Mr Patial] used his car to remove the old furniture from the office and kept the old furniture in his garage for council pickups.
109.[Mr Patial] spent approximately 8 hours removing the old office furniture.
110.On 31 August 2020, as per [Mr Pall’s] instruction, [Mr Patial] provided the removing old office furniture invoice to [Mr Pall] for the amount of $700.00.
111.The amount on the invoice is incorrect. The correct amount is 8 * $148.50 = $1,188.00.
112. [Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of $1,188.00 because [the respondents], didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for removing old office furniture.
113.[Mr Patial] claims $1,188.00 from [the respondents].
F.7. Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville
114.In or about June 2020, [Mr Pall] told [Mr Patial] to move the office files boxes of the [companies’] leftovers from Deepawali Mela, banners to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville.
115.[Mr Patial] used his car and made two round trips from the office to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville.
116.[Kailash’s] paralegal … also assisted [Mr Patial] in moving the office files.
117.[Mr Patial] spent approximately 8 hours moving the office files and materials for the [the respondents].
118.On 31 August 2020, as per [Mr Pall’s] instruction, [Mr Patial] provided the invoice for moving the office files to [Mr Pall] for the amount of $700.00.
119.The amount on the invoice is incorrect. The correct amount is 8 * $148.50 = $1,188.00.
120.[Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of $1,188.00 because [the respondents], didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for moving the office files to Kennards Storage Box Wentworthville.
121.[Mr Patial] claims $1,188.00 from [the respondents].
F.8. Shifting Office Furniture
122.In or about May 2019, [Mr Pall] told [Mr Patial] to swap [Kailash’s] office space with [Koala’s] office space.
123.[Mr Patial] spent approximately 8 hours swapping places and moving [Kailash’s] office space furniture with [Koala].
124.In or about July 2019, [Mr Pall] again told [Mr Patial] to reorganise the office furniture in the same room, including paralegal desks on the corner and solicitor tables on different sides.
125.[Mr Patial] spent approximately 6 hours reorganising the office furniture for [Kailash and Koala].
126.[Mr Patial] spent a total of approximate 14 hours shifting and reorganising the office furniture for [Kailash and Koala].
127.On 31 August 2020, as per [Mr Pall’s] instruction, [Mr Patial] provided the Shifting Office Furniture invoice to [Mr Pall] for the amount of $2,000.00.
128.The amount on the invoice is incorrect. The correct amount is 14 * $148.50 = $2,079.00.
129.[Mr Patial] has suffered a financial loss of $2,079.00 because [the respondents], didn’t pay [Mr Patial] for reorganising the office furniture.
130.[Mr Patial] claims $2,079.00 from [the respondents].
(as written; emphasis in original; references to “the respondents” is to the respondents named in the second iteration of the statement of claim)
The loss claimed for the alleged non-payment for such services is set out at paragraph [262] of the second iteration of the statement of claim, relevantly, as follows:
262. And [Mr Patial] claims the following:
…
(c) Outstanding payment - IT services $210,870.00 (d) Outstanding payment - [Kailasam’s] Logo $1,485.00 (e) Outstanding payment - Deepawali Event $37,125.00 (f) Outstanding payment - Distributing Calendars $14,850.00 (g) Outstanding payment - Assembling Office Furniture $4,455.00 (h) Outstanding payment - Removing old office furniture $1,188.00 (i) Outstanding payment - Moving Office Files Kennards Storage Box $1,188.00 (j) Outstanding payment - Shifting Office Furniture
$2,079.00
The total of those amounts is $273,240.00. The difference between this iteration of the statement of claim and the initial statement of claim (which sought $55,339.20 – see [24] above) appears to be due to: (1) the use of an hourly rate of $148.50, rather than $30.24; and (2) the inclusion of an amount of $1,485.00 for the logo services.
On 6 March 2024, I dismissed Mr Patial’s application for leave to file the proposed second iteration of his statement of claim in proceeding NSD1016/2021 and published my reasons for doing so: Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants (No 4) [2024] FCA 179 (Patial (No 4)). An application for leave to appeal that decision was dismissed: Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd trading as Kailash Lawyers and Consultants [2025] FCA 113 (Bromwich J).
In Patial (No 4), I noted at [10] to [19] various fundamental flaws in the proposed second iteration of the statement of claim.
At [32] to [34] I stated:
32Parts F.1 to F.10 of the PSOC are a miscellany of claims for what is described as “additional work”, allegedly undertaken by Mr Patial for all of the present and proposed respondents.
33However, no cause of action – whether in contract or otherwise – has been pleaded. To the extent that it might be suggested that this work was done pursuant to an employment relationship between Mr Patial and Kailash Lawyers this would be an abuse of process. To the extent that it might be suggested that Mr Patial was in a contractual relationship with any of the present and proposed respondents, the material facts upon which that conclusion is based has not been pleaded.
34Leave with respect to Parts F.1 to F.10 of the PSOC should be refused.
(emphasis in original)
B.6 The Supreme Court and District Court proceedings
On 2 August 2024, Mr Patial filed a statement of claim in Supreme Court of New South Wales proceeding 2024/00283199 (Supreme Court proceeding). The statement of claim bears Mr Patial’s email address. Kailash is the only defendant.
On 5 August 2024, Mr Patial filed a statement of claim in District Court of New South Wales proceeding 2024/00286813 (District Court proceeding). The statement of claim bears Mr Patial’s email address. Mr Pall is the only defendant.
The statements of claim in each of the Supreme Court proceeding and the District Court proceeding include an allegation that the Agreement was an unfair contract because it did not specify an hourly rate.
On 21 March 2025, the Supreme Court proceeding and the District Court proceeding were transferred, by order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, to this Court: see Patial v Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 219 (Schmidt AJ). I am case managing those proceedings alongside proceeding NSD1016/2021.
B.7 The bankruptcy notice
On 16 September 2024, a bankruptcy notice was issued at the request of Kailash to Mr Patial for $47,580.87, relating to a judgment debt arising from a judgment of Judge Humphreys in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 12 March 2024. Kailash relies upon this judgment debt as the basis for an off‑setting claim.
B.8 The prior demands
On 15 or 16 May 2025, Mr Patial served on each of the companies a demand under s 459E of the Act (prior demands) and a supporting affidavit he had made. The amounts demanded were: Kailash ($450,717.26); Koala ($269,511.00); Kuber ($15,031.50); and Kailasam ($18,331.50) – a total of $753,591.26.
On 19 May 2025, Mr Pall wrote to Mr Patial referring to the prior demands and stating:
…
In the context of the litigation currently before the Federal Court of Australia involving yourself and the above corporate entities, the above CSDs are clearly an abuse of process, see: Mann v Goldstein [1968] 1 WLR 1091 and Portfolio Projects Pty Limited v Oaks Building Co Pty Limited (1987) 5 ACLC 911.
In light of the above, we ask that you withdraw the CSDs by 4.00 pm on 21 May 2025. Failing such, we will file an application to set the above CSDs aside and will rely on this email in relation to seeking costs on indemnity basis.
(emphasis in original)
B.9 The 20 May 2025 invoices
On 20 May 2025, Mr Patial sent to Mr Pall a series of 45 invoices (20 May 2025 invoices). Each 20 May 2025 invoice bears a date of 20 May 2025 and states that the due date for payment is 27 May 2025. It also provides contact details for Mr Patial, including Mr Patial’s email address and an address in Midson Road, Epping, in Sydney (Midson Road address). The amounts said to be due for those invoices also appears to have been derived using an hourly rate of $330.00 ($300.00 plus GST). The Schedule to these reasons for judgment sets out more detail of the 20 May 2025 invoices.
The 20 May 2025 invoices fall into two broad categories. The first category comprises the first 17 invoices in the Schedule, being invoices addressed solely to Kailash and which state amounts said to be due for legal services provided by Mr Patial to Kailash during the Agreement period (and for sundries related to the provision of such services). These 17 invoices, which I will refer to as the legal services invoices, total $230,917.54.
The second category comprises invoices 18 to 45 in the Schedule. I will refer to these invoices as the shared services invoices. Each is in a similar form and states an amount said to be due for shared services provided by Mr Patial during the Agreement period. Each shared service invoice includes the following notation:
This invoice forms part of a shared service arrangement across four associated entities:
➢ Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd (50%)
➢ Koala Investment Property Pty Ltd (45%)
➢ Kuber Investment Group Pty Ltd (2.5%)
➢ Kailasam Holdings Pty Ltd (2.5%)
Each invoice reflects the pro-rata share of the total services provided for the full period.
(emphasis added)
As is apparent, the shared services invoices are premised on the existence of a “shared service arrangement” across the companies (to which Mr Patial is presumably said also to be a party). During the hearing Mr Patial acknowledged that there is no written agreement to this effect, and he contended (from the bar table) that there is an oral agreement. There is, however, no evidence of such an agreement on this application and in particular as to the division of liability between the companies.
Mr Pall’s evidence is that there was no agreement concerning the shared services; and that no invoices were rendered by Mr Patial to Koala, Kuber and Kailasam during the Agreement period, and not until the 20 May 2025 invoices were rendered almost five years later.
B.10 Withdrawal of the prior demands and service of the demands
On 27 May 2025, Mr Patial (from Mr Patial’s email address) sent to Mr Pall notification of his withdrawal of the prior demands.
On 30 May 2025, Mr Patial served the companies with the demands. The demands each state that the company to which it is addressed owes an amount to Mr Patial, as set out in the schedule to that demand. Paragraph 6 of each demand is in the following form:
6. The address of the creditor for service of copies of any application and affidavit is:
Prateek Patial
[the Midson Road address]
The Midson Road address has also been used by Mr Patial in various pleadings and affidavits filed in these proceedings.
The schedule to the demand addressed to Kailash (Kailash demand) is:
Description of the debt Amount of the debt Service Fee of August 2020 (Complete Outstanding) $16,790.00 Service Fee of September 2020 (Complete Outstanding) $996.85 Unclaimed Sundries (Complete Outstanding Sundries) $8,415.00 Service Fee of April 2019 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $4,039.50 Service Fee of May 2019 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $4,280.04 Service Fee of June 2019 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $5,689.80 Service Fee of August 2019 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $5,648.64 Service Fee of September 2019 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $6,852.06 Service Fee of October 2019 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $12,209.87 Service Fee of November 2019 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $12,080.70 Service Fee of December 2019 – January 2020 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $17,062.86 Service Fee of February 2020 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $8,032.50 Service Fee of March 2020 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $5,349.60 Service Fee of April 2020 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $6,145.80 Service Fee of May 2020 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $20,444.36 Service Fee of June 2020 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $9,369.88 Service Fee of July 2020 (Partial Paid – Remaining Outstanding Amount) $5,623.80 Service Fee For IT Services From April 2019 to August 2020 – Part Payment @50% $234,300.00 Service Fee For Distributing Calendar Services – Part Payment @50% $16,500.00 Service Fee For Assembling Furniture – Part Payment @50% $4,950.00 Service Fee For Removing Old Furniture – Part Payment @50% $1,320.00 Service Fee For Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box – Part Payment@50% $2,376.00 Service Fee For Shifting Office Furniture – Part Payment@50% $4,620.00 Service Fee For Deepawali Event – Part Payment @50% $41,250.00 Total Amount:
$452,037.26
Although the total amount recorded on the Kailash demand is $452,037.26, the true total appears to be $454,347.26, a difference of $2,310.00. As explained in the Schedule, the invoice addressed to Kailash for the “Service Fee For Shifting Office Furniture …” recorded an amount of $2,310.00 rather than $4,620.00 (as shown in the penultimate entry in the schedule above). Kailash relies upon this difference to argue that the Kailash demand overstates the amount due in accordance with the 20 May 2025 invoices and as such is defective.
The schedule to the demand addressed to Koala (Koala demand) is:
Description of the debt Amount of the debt Service Fee for IT Services from April 2019 to August 2020 – Part Payment @45% $210,870.00 Service Fee for Distributing Calendar Services – Part Payment @45% $14,850.00 Service Fee for Assembling Furniture – Part Payment @45% $4,455.00 Service Fee for Removing Old Furniture – Part Payment @45% $1,188.00 Service Fee for Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box – Part Payment @45% $132.00 Service Fee for Shifting Office Furniture – Part Payment @45% $2,079.00 Service Fee for Deepawali Event – Part Payment @45% $37,125.00 Total Amount:
$270,699.00
The schedule to the demand addressed to Kuber (Kuber demand) is:
Description of the debt Amount of the debt Service Fee for IT Services from April 2019 to August 2020 – Part Payment @2.5% $11,715.00 Service Fee for Distributing Calendar Services – Part Payment @2.5% $825.00 Service Fee for Assembling Furniture – Part Payment @2.5% $247.50 Service Fee for Removing Old Furniture – Part Payment @2.5% $66.00 Service Fee for Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box – Part Payment @2.5% $66.00 Service Fee for Shifting Office Furniture – Part Payment @2.5% $115.50 Service Fee for Deepawali Event – Part Payment @2.5% $2,062.50 Total Amount:
$15,097.50
The schedule to the demand addressed to Kailasam (Kailasam demand) is:
Description of the debt Amount of the debt Service Fee for IT Services from April 2019 to August 2020 – Part Payment @2.5% $11,715.00 Service Fee for Kailash Group Logo $3,300.00 Service Fee for Distributing Calendar Services – Part Payment @2.5% $825.00 Service Fee for Assembling Furniture – Part Payment @2.5% $247.50 Service Fee for Removing Old Furniture – Part Payment @2.5% $66.00 Service Fee for Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box – Part Payment @2.5% $66.00 Service Fee for Shifting Office Furniture – Part Payment @2.5% $115.50 Service Fee for Deepawali Event – Part Payment @2.5% $2,062.50 Total Amount:
$18,397.50
The schedules to the demands reflect Mr Patial’s contentions that:
(1)Kailash (alone) is liable to him for 17 debts for legal services totalling $149,031.26;
(2)Kailasam (alone) is liable to him for a debt concerning the logo services of $3,300.00; and
(3)each of the companies is partially liable to him for another seven debts concerning the shared services, as summarised in the table below:
No Description of the debt Kailash (50%) Koala (45%) Kuber (2.5%) Kailasam (2.5%) Total 1. Service fee for IT Services April 2019 to August 2020 $234,300.00 $210,870.00 $11,715.00 $11,715.00 $468,600.00 2. Service fee for Distributing Calendar Services $16,500.00 $14,850.00 $825.00 $825.00 $33,000.00 3. Service fee for Assembling Furniture $4,950.00 $4,455.00 $247.50 $247.50 $9,900.00 4. Service fee for Removing Old Furniture $1,320.00 $1,188.00 $66.00 $66.00 $2,640.00 5. Service fee for Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box $2,376.00 $132.00 $66.00 $66.00 $2,640.00 6. Service fee for Shifting Office Furniture $4,620.00 $2,079.00 $115.50 $115.50 $6,930.00 7. Service fee for Deepawali Event $41,250.00 $37,125.00 $2,062.50 $2,062.50 $82,500.00 Total $305,316.00 $270,699.00 $15,097.50 $15,097.50 $606,210.00
On 4 June 2025, Mr Pall sent an email to Mr Patial (as written):
We refer to our email dated 19 May 2025 at 16.05 pm, and withdrawal notices sent via email on 27 May 2025.
We further note that you have served a new set of Creditor’s Statutory Demands(CSD) on 30 May 2025 for the below companies:
1.Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd;
2.Koala Investment Property Pty Ltd;
3.Kuber Investment Group Pty Ltd; and
4.Kailasam Holdings Pty Ltd, (together, the new CSDs).
In the context of the litigation currently before the Federal Court of Australia involving yourself and the above corporate entities, the new CSDs suffer the same flaw and are clearly an abuse of process, see: Mann v Goldstein [1968] 1 WLR 1091 and Portfolio Projects Pty Limited v Oaks Building Co Pty Limited (1987) 5 ACLC 911.
In light of the above, we ask that your withdraw the new CSDs by 4.00 pm on 6 June 2025. Failing such, we will file an application to set the new CSDs aside and will rely on this email in relation to seeking costs on indemnity basis.
(emphasis in original)
Mr Patial did not accede to the request that he withdraw the demands.
B.11 The third iteration of the statement of claim
On 13 June 2025, Mr Patial filed an interlocutory application for leave to file a third iteration of his statement of claim in proceeding NSD1016/2021. Both the application and the third iteration of the statement of claim bear Mr Patial’s email address. The third iteration of the statement of claim names each of the companies and Mr Pall as respondents.
This version of the statement of claim does not appear to seek recovery of amounts due for services rendered by Mr Patial. Rather it appears to claim an entitlement to superannuation calculated as a function of amounts invoiced by Mr Patial to the companies for services rendered by Mr Patial to the companies during the Agreement period.
For example, it contains:
(1)with respect to Kailash:
SUPERANNUATION OBLIGATIONS – SUPERVISED LEGAL TRAINING
16.[Mr Patial’s] legal work, though framed as “training”, constituted labour rendered for the benefit of [Kailash] and falls within the extended definition of “employee” under:
i.section 12(1) – standard employee;
ii.section 12(3) – contractor principally providing labour;
iii.section 12(8) – trainee/apprentice arrangements, of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) (“SGAA”).
17.Pursuant to section 16 SGAA, [Kailash] was required to make compulsory superannuation contributions for each quarter during [Mr Patial’s] engagement.
18.The statutory contribution rate under section 19 SGAA for FY2019 and FY2020 was 9.5%, and no payments were made to [Mr Patial’s] nominated fund (REST).
19.For legal work invoiced at $187,518.04, [Kailash] incurred a superannuation liability of $17,814.21.
20.Pursuant to section 31 SGAA, a Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC) is imposed including:
i.The unpaid superannuation,
ii.10% nominal interest,
iii.Administrative fees.
21.Super liability under section 16 and section 19 amounts to $17,814.21 with interest of $8,233.58 from 28 October 2020 to 11 June 2025, totalling $26,047.79.
SUPERANNUATION OBLIGATIONS – MIGRATION AGENT WORK
22.Between April 2019 and August 2020, [Mr Patial] also worked as a Registered Migration Agent for [Kailash].
23.Services included the preparation and filing of Form 956, naming [Kailash] as the receiving entity and [Mr Pall] as the Principal Agent.
24.As the work was personally performed and for the benefit of [Kailash], it is “labour” under section 12(3) SGAA.
25.[Mr Patial] invoiced $34,984.50, on which [Kailash] failed to remit superannuation contributions totalling $3,323.50.
26.Super liability under section 16 and section 19 amounts to $3,323.50 with interest of $1,536.09 from 28 October 2020 to 11 June 2025, totalling $4,859.59.
SUPERANNUATION OBLIGATIONS – GENERAL SERVICES
27.[Mr Patial] performed various additional services from April 2019 to August 2020, including:
i. IT support;
ii. Distribution of marketing materials;
iii. Assembly and relocation of office furniture;
iv. Event organisation (e.g., Deepawali).
28.This work, though not covered under any written agreement, was for the benefit of [Kailash] and constitutes “labour” within the extended definition of “employee”.
29.These services, billed at $303,006.00, also fall within the meaning of labour under section 12(3) SGAA, as they were rendered personally and for the business benefit of [Kailash].
30.Super liability under section 16 and section 19 amounts to 28,785.57 with interest of $13,304.45 from 28 October 2020 to 11 June 2025, totalling $42,090.02.
(emphasis in original) ;
(2)with respect to Koala:
35.Between April 2019 and August 2020, [Mr Patial] rendered professional services to [Koala], including but not limited to:
i.IT support services;
ii.Distribution of corporate marketing material (e.g., calendars);
iii.Assembly and removal of office furniture;
iv.Relocation of office records and equipment to Kennards storage;
v.Organisation and facilitation of company events, including Deepawali celebrations.
36.The services were performed at the direction of, and for the benefit of, [Koala] in the ordinary course of its business operations.
37.[Mr Patial] issued itemised invoices totalling $270,699.00 for these services between April 2019 and August 2020. ;
(3)with respect to Kuber:
45.Between April 2019 and August 2020, [Mr Patial] performed services for [Kuber], including:
i. IT support and technical assistance;
ii. Distribution of company calendars;
iii. Assembly and removal of furniture and other office fixtures;
iv. Movement of archived files and supplies to Kennards Storage;
v. Event assistance including Deepawali preparations.
46.These services were rendered exclusively for the commercial benefit of [Kuber] and at its instruction or request.
47.During the period of service, [Mr Patial] invoiced [Kuber] for $15,097.50, for labour and services personally provided. ; and
(4)with respect to Kailasam:
56.Between April 2019 and August 2020, [Mr Patial] provided a series of services to [Kailasam], including:
i.Provision of IT infrastructure and technical support;
ii.Creation and/or refinement of the “Kailash Group” branding materials, including logo development;
iii.Distribution of promotional calendars;
iv.Assembly and removal of furniture and fixtures;
v.Logistical services involving relocation of office materials to Kennards storage facilities;
vi.Coordination and support of company functions including Deepawali events.
57.These services were rendered exclusively for the benefit of [Kailasam’s] commercial operations and under its direct or delegated authority.
58.For the provision of these services, [Mr Patial] issued invoices totalling $18,397.50 over the course of the aforementioned period.
Paragraphs 37, 47 and 58 of the third iteration of the statement of claim suggest that Mr Patial issued invoices totalling $270,699.00 to Koala, $15,097.50 to Kuber and $18,397.50 to Kailasam over the course of the Agreement period. To the extent that it is suggested that such invoices were rendered during the Agreement period, there does not appear to be evidence that this occurred. It may be noted these amounts correspond to the amounts claimed in the 20 May 2025 invoices and the demands issued to each of these three companies (see [51] to [53] and [54(3)] above). It may also be noted that Mr Pall’s evidence is that during the Agreement period: (1) the only invoices rendered by Mr Patial were the contemporaneous invoices; and (2) no invoices were rendered by Mr Patial to Koala, Kuber or Kailasam.
B.12 Commencement of the proceeding NSD970/2025 to set aside the demands
On 18 June 2025, the companies – as the first, second, third and fourth plaintiffs – commenced proceeding NSD970/2025 by filing: (1) an originating application (NSD970/2025 originating application); and (2) Mr Pall’s 17 June 2025 affidavit. I will refer to these documents together as the originating documents.
The NSD970/2025 originating application includes:
On the facts stated in the supporting Affidavit of Mr Amit Pall sworn/affirmed 16 June 2025:
1. The First Plaintiff seeks an order under s 495H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the First Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
2.The Second Plaintiff seeks an order under s 495H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Second Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
3.The Third Plaintiff seeks an order under s 495H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Third Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
4.The Fourth Plaintiff seeks an order under s 495H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Second Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.
…
I pause to note that the NSD970/2025 originating application contains two errors. The first is that the reference to the date of Mr Pall’s affidavit should be to “17 June” rather than “16 June”. The second is that each of the orders is sought under “s 495H” of the Act (which does not exist) rather than s 459H of that Act. These errors are discussed at D. below as part of an application by the companies to amend the NSD970/2025 originating application and in the context of Mr Patial’s submission that a consequence of these errors is that the Court lacks jurisdiction in proceeding NSD970/2025.
Mr Pall’s 17 June 2025 affidavit includes the bases on which he contends that there is a genuine dispute with respect to the debts claimed in the schedules to each of the demands.
For Kailash, Mr Pall’s evidence includes that:
(1)as to the legal services invoices:
(a)the Agreement did not mention an hourly rate and Mr Patial was never engaged on an hourly rate basis under the Agreement;
(b)during the Agreement period, Mr Patial rendered only the contemporaneous invoices for legal work that he had performed;
(c)the contemporaneous invoices were paid in full and there was no mention in those invoices of partial payment (as is suggested in the Kailash demand – see [49] above);
(d)the 20 May 2025 invoices and the Kailash demand refer to legal work for which invoices were not rendered during the Agreement period;
(e)the 31 August 2020 invoices contain different amounts than the amounts now claimed in the 20 May 2025 invoices and the Kailash demand;
(f)the amounts, if any, owing for legal services provided by Mr Patial, are in dispute in proceeding NSD1016/2021;
(2)as to the shared services invoices:
(a)there was no shared services agreement or arrangement in place;
(b)Mr Patial was not engaged on a paid or remuneration basis to perform any of the shared services or the logo services;
(c)the 31 August 2020 invoices referred to various of the shared services but were addressed only to Kailash and not to Koala, Kuber or Kailasam;
(d)Mr Pall’s records do not show, and he does not recall, any invoices rendered by Mr Patial to Koala, Kuber or Kailasam for the shared services prior to the 20 May 2025 invoices;
(e)the amounts claimed in the shared services invoices are significantly more than the amounts claimed in the 31 August 2020 invoices and the first and second iterations of statements of claim for such services;
(f)the amounts, if any, owing for the shared services are in dispute in proceeding NSD1016/2021; and
(3)Kailash has a claim against Mr Patial for $47,580.87 with respect to the judgment debt (see [38] above).
For Koala, Kuber and Kailasam, Mr Pall’s evidence is that these companies dispute the debts claimed in the Koala demand, the Kuber demand and the Kailasam demand for the reasons set out at [65(2)] above.
Further, with respect to Koala, Mr Pall’s evidence is that: (1) the only written agreement between Mr Patial and Koala is a referral agreement; (2) he has searched his records but cannot find a copy executed by both parties; and (3) in any event, no work, was done under the referral agreement by Mr Patial, such that there was nothing for him to invoice.
B.13 Service of the originating application and affidavit in support
Returning to the chronology of events, on 18 June 2025 Ms Hill – the process server instructed by Mr Pall – placed a sealed envelope addressed to Mr Patial and containing the originating documents, within the letter box at the Midson Road address.
In his written submissions, Mr Patial suggested that the originating documents had been placed into his letterbox (but that this was insufficient to effect service). For example, Mr Patial submitted:
However, the process server’s conduct in this matter cannot be regarded as compliant with either personal service or ordinary service under the Rules. Specifically, the documents were placed in the letterbox in an unmarked envelope bearing only the Defendant’s name and address, with no indication of the sender or the nature of its contents.
Despite this, Mr Patial submitted during the hearing, based upon a particular construction of Ms Hill’s affidavit, that she had left some but not all of the pages to Mr Pall’s 17 June 2025 affidavit in the envelope placed into his letterbox. I accept that there is an ambiguity in Ms Hill’s affidavit, however, I am satisfied that she left the whole of Mr Pall’s 17 June 2025 affidavit in the letterbox in circumstances where: (1) a construction of her affidavit to the effect that she did so is well-open; (2) there is no apparent reason why a process server would serve some but not all of the pages of an affidavit; (3) there is no evidence from Mr Patial suggesting that only part of the affidavit was received, bearing in mind the principle in Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969 that all evidence should be weighed according to the capacity of each party to produce or contradict it. Mr Patial, as the recipient of the envelope was in a position to produce it, or to put on evidence as to its contents. He did neither and appeared to suggest from the bar table that he had not checked the envelope, that he had not read the documents within it, and that he had “thrown” it, relying instead upon the electronic copy; and (4) Mr Patial did not seek to cross‑examine Ms Hill who was present in Court (such presence being the result, I infer, of a previous indication by Mr Patial that he wished to seek to cross‑examine all of the companies’ witnesses).
Thus, I am satisfied that the originating documents were left at the Midson Road address on 18 June 2025.
On 19 June 2025, Mr Sareen – the companies’ solicitor – sent an email to Mr Patial’s email address attaching the originating documents (19 June 2025 email).
B.14 Commencement of the winding up proceedings
On 26 June 2025, Mr Patial commenced the winding up proceedings by filing an originating process in each of those proceedings (winding up originating processes). The winding up originating processes are expressed to be applications made under s 459P of the Act for various orders, including an order under s 459A of the Act that each defendant be wound up in insolvency. Part C of each winding up originating process includes:
A Statutory Demand dated 29 May 2025 was served on [the defendant], at its registered office on 30 May 2025, and was acknowledged in writing by the company’s representative.
The company has failed to comply with the statutory demand within the 21-day period required under section 459F(2) of the Corporations Act 2001, which expired on 20 June 2025.
The defendant has not validly filed an application under section 459G to set aside the demand. Although a consolidated application was filed under Federal Court File No. NSD970/2025 including the defendant as a co-plaintiff, it was not filed in the defendant’s sole name nor in compliance with section 459G.
…
On the same day, Mr Patial served upon the companies the winding up originating processes and an affidavit that he had affirmed on 25 June 2025 in support in each of the winding up originating processes. At [6A] of each affidavit Mr Patial avers:
6A.[The defendant] has not made any application in its sole capacity pursuant to section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 to set aside the statutory demand served upon it on 30 May 2025. However, I was served by email on 19 June 2025 at 5:33 pm with a copy of an application filed by Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd & Ors (Federal Court File No. NSD970/2025), which includes [the defendant] as [a named] plaintiff, purporting to seek to set aside multiple statutory demands, including the one issued to [the defendant].
This application:
6A.1.Does not satisfy the requirement that an application under section 459G be made by the company to whom the demand was addressed, in its own name and within time;
6A.2.Was filed as a joint application by four companies, without a separate, distinct affidavit on behalf of the defendant company addressing its own circumstances;
6A.3.Was not served personally nor under any substituted service order authorised by the Court.
Accordingly, there is no valid or competent application before the Court made by the defendant in compliance with section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001, and the statutory demand remains undisturbed and enforceable.
(emphasis added)
Also on 26 June 2025, Mr Pall wrote to Mr Patial:
We refer to your recent applications to wind up the following companies:
1.Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd;
2.Kailasam Holdings Pty Ltd;
3.Koala Investment Property Pty Ltd;
4.Kuber Investment Group Pty Ltd
Your applications are devoid of any merit and are doomed to fail. In particular, the reasons asserted relating to service and the requirement for one application are against authority:
1.personal service of an application under s 459G is not required: Site Foreman Pty Ltd v Brand [2011] NSWSC 821. The four statutory demands were served by you on 30 May 2025. Our application to set aside those four statutory demands was served on you on 18 June 2025 in accordance with Site Foreman. Further, you attest to having received our application to set aside the statutory demands on 19 June 2025 by email. As such, our application to set aside your statutory demands was filed and served on you within 21 days; and
2.one application can be used to set aside multiple statutory demands: Remo Constructions Pty Ltd v Dualcorp Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1172; 222 FLR 375; Heirloom Vineyards Wine Company Pty Ltd v Sante Wines Pty Ltd [2018] SASCFC 56; 131 SASR 150.
Further, we note that on 23 June 2025 at 15.42 pm you were informed via email from Mr Gaurav Sareen of Vexo Lawyers that our application to set aside the statutory demands has been listed for a case management hearing on 10 July at 9.30 am before Justice Goodman.
As such, we ask that you withdraw your winding up applications, failing such we will rely on this letter to see indemnity costs of your applications.
(emphasis in original)
On 27 June 2025, Mr Pall wrote to Mr Patial again requesting the withdrawal of the winding up originating processes.
Mr Patial did not accede to that request.
On (Sunday) 29 June 2025, during an urgently convened hearing before Justice Younan qua duty judge, in the winding up proceedings: (1) each company was granted leave to file an interlocutory process; (2) each company, on the basis of its provision of the usual undertaking as to damages, obtained orders restraining publication of a notice of the filing of the winding up applications; and (3) an interlocutory application made by each company for summary dismissal of the winding up proceeding against it was made returnable before me on 10 July 2025.
On 10 July 2025, I set down for final hearing on 18 July 2025 each of proceeding NSD970/2025 and the winding up proceedings.
On 15 July 2025, Mr Patial filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) a “Form 519” with respect to each of the winding up proceedings, giving notice of that proceeding.
C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The four questions that arise for determination are as follows:
(1)should the companies be granted leave to amend the NSD970/2025 originating application?;
(2)have the requirements of s 459G of the Act been met for each demand?;
(3)if the answer to (2) is “yes”, then should the demands be set aside?; and
(4)if the answer to either (2) or (3) is “no”, then should each of the companies be wound up in insolvency in the winding up proceedings?
D. THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION
As noted at [63] above, the NSD970/2025 originating application contains several errors.
During the course of the hearing, the companies sought to amend the NSD970/2025 originating application, by making changes to the following effect:
On the facts stated in the supporting Affidavit of Amit Pall sworn/affirmed
1617 June 2025:1. The First Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the First Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.2.The Second Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Second Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.3.The Third Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Third Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.4.The Fourth Plaintiff seeks an order under s
495H459H and/or s 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) that Mr Prateek Patial’s statutory demand dated 29 May 2025 and served on the Second Plaintiff on 30 May 2025 be set aside.Mr Patial opposed the amendment application and submitted that the use of “16 June” rather than “17 June” and the use of “s 495H” rather than “s 459H” had the effect that the NSD970/2025 originating application is defective and the jurisdiction of the Court has not been invoked.
I do not accept Mr Patial’s submissions and I will grant leave to the plaintiff to file an amended originating application to give effect to the proposed amendments, for the following reasons.
First, s 467A of the Act provides that an application under Part 5.4 of that Act (which the NSD970/2025 originating application is) must not be dismissed merely because of a defect or irregularity in connection with that application unless the Court is satisfied that substantial injustice has been caused that cannot otherwise be remedied (for example, by an adjournment or an order for costs).
The use of “16 June” and “s 495H” is self-evidently the product of drafting errors. Those errors cannot have caused Mr Patial any prejudice or injustice, much less substantial injustice, in circumstances where it is clear – from, e.g., his written submissions in each proceeding – that he has proceeded on the basis that the NSD970/2025 originating application is an application under s 459G of the Act supported by Mr Patial’s 17 June 2025 affidavit. There is no suggestion in any correspondence or written submission that Mr Patial queried the basis of an application under “s 495G”, or asked for a copy of an affidavit sworn on 16 June 2025, or was operating on the basis that the application was brought otherwise than on the basis that orders were sought under s 459G for the reasons set out in Mr Pall’s 17 June 2025 affidavit. Rather, these issues were raised for the first time in oral submissions during the hearing. Mr Patial did not identify any substantial injustice that he would suffer.
Secondly, under r 8.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) an applicant may apply to amend an originating application for any reason, including the correction of a defect or error that would otherwise prevent the Court from determining the real questions raised by the proceeding. The exercise of the Court’s power on such an application also has regard to the aim of determining the real questions in issue. As the High Court of Australia (McTiernan ACJ, Menzies, Gibbs and Mason JJ) explained in Clough v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481 at 482, adopting the statement of principle of Bowen LJ in Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 at 710 to 711, the Court’s aim is to decide the rights of the parties, and is not to punish them for mistakes.
Thirdly, a grant of leave would be consistent with the approach taken in previous authorities. See for example, A & M Short Pty Ltd v Prestige Residential Marketing Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 872; (2005) 54 ACSR 760, where Young J (as his Honour then was) allowed an amendment to overcome an error which saw the application brought not in the name of the company seeking to set aside the demand, but in the name of another company.
Finally, the errors do not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. The NSD970/2025 originating application, as filed, sought orders for the setting of the demands. There is no requirement in s 459G that the date of the supporting affidavit, or a reference to s 459G itself, be included in the application made under that section.
E. HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF S 459G OF THE ACT BEEN MET FOR EACH DEMAND?
I turn now to consider whether the requirements of s 459G of the Act have been met.
Section 459G provides:
459G Company may apply
(1) A company may apply to the Court for an order setting aside a statutory demand served on the company.
(2) An application may only be made within the statutory period after the demand is so served.
(3) An application is made in accordance with this section only if, within that period:
(a)an affidavit supporting the application is filed with the Court; and
(b) a copy of the application, and a copy of the supporting affidavit, are served on the person who served the demand on the company.
The “statutory period” as defined in s 9 of the Act, is 21 days. If the events required by s 459G do not occur within the statutory period, then the Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the application: David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] HCA 43; (1995) 184 CLR 265 at 277 [28] (Gummow J, with whom Brennan CJ, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ agreed).
In Heirloom Vineyards Wine Co Pty Ltd v Sante Wines Pty Ltd [2018] SASCFC 56; (2018) 128 ACSR 212 Doyle J (with whom Parker and Lovell JJ agreed) explained at 242 to 243 ([159] to [160]):
Permissibility of composite proceedings
[159] In the end, I have come to the conclusion that there is no general rule, whether founded in the text of s 459G or otherwise, that a proceeding or application to set aside a statutory demand under s 459G must deal only with one statutory demand. Rather, the only requirements imposed by the legislation are those found in the text of s 459G, namely that:
1.the company make an application to the Court (s 459G(1));
2.the application and supporting affidavit be filed and served within 21 days after service of the demand (s 459G(2) and (3));
3.the application seek “an order setting aside [the] demand” (s 459G(1)); and
4.the affidavit filed with the application is in truth an affidavit “supporting” the application to set aside the particular demand (s 459(3)(a)).
[160] In the case of a proceeding seeking to set aside multiple demands, these requirements must be separately considered and met in respect of each demand. If the requirements are not met in respect of any particular demand or demands, then the proceeding will fail in respect of that demand or demands; but the proceeding will remain valid for any other demand or demands in respect of which the requirements have been met. The multiplicity of demands, or composite nature of the proceedings, is otherwise irrelevant in determining compliance with the requirements of s 459G. There is no prohibition against composite proceedings, and no requirement that each proceeding or application deal only with one demand.
(emphasis in original)
In the present case, I infer that the demands were served not for the purpose of winding up the companies on the ground of insolvency, but rather in order to apply pressure for the payment of debts in respect of which Mr Patial was plainly on notice of a genuine dispute. Such an inference arises from Mr Patial’s service of the demands despite his knowledge of the following matters:
(1)Mr Patial’s assertions of amounts due to him from the companies for services performed during the Agreement period in the first and second iterations of the statement of claim in proceeding NSD1016/2021 and the resistance to such claims in that proceeding;
(2)the absence of any written shared services agreement and the absence of any evidence of an oral shared services agreement;
(3)the hourly rate – being a rate allegedly applicable during the finite Agreement period – being increased in documents created subsequently by Mr Patial;
(4)the absence of evidence of any invoices rendered to Koala, Kuber and Kailasam for work done during the Agreement period (which ended in August 2020) until 20 May 2025 (which as noted above is some four and one-half years later);
(5)the correspondence from the companies indicating that there was a genuine dispute ([17] and [40] above); and
(6)the hard-fought proceedings NSD1016/2021.
G. SHOULD THE COMPANIES BE WOUND UP?
As the answer to questions (2) and (3) are each “yes”, it follows that the demands should be set aside. Thus, there is no basis for the winding up of the companies.
H. OTHER ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE COMPANIES
The companies seek several ancillary orders.
The first is an order that Mr Patial be restrained from issuing further statutory demands against the companies or Mr Pall which are based on the same underlying facts until proceeding NSD1016/2021 has been determined.
In view of the approach taken by Mr Patial to the issuance of the demands and in the present proceedings and the corresponding exposure of the companies to the incurrence of costs that should not have had to be incurred, an order is appropriate but not in the absolute terms suggested. Rather, Mr Patial should be restrained, but have the ability to apply to the Court for leave to issue a demand under s 459E of the Act. Further, I do not see a basis or a need for such an order to extend to action by Mr Patial against Mr Pall.
The second is an order under s 1322 of the Act to remove from ASIC’s registers any reference to the winding up proceedings. The companies call in aid the decision of Justice Finkelstein in Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Westpoint Constructions Pty Ltd, in the matter of Westpoint Constructions Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 808; (2005) 23 ACLC 1384. I am not minded to accede to this application, which was made without notice to Mr Patial or ASIC, in circumstances where: (1) the evidence which is before the Court on the applications that were heard with notice is insufficient to justify such an order; and (2) the effect of s 470(1)(c) of the Act is to require Mr Patial to lodge a notice of the dismissal of the winding up originating process within two business days of their dismissal; and (3) there is no evidence (or submission) as to why any prejudice for which the companies contend would not be cured by the lodgement of such notices.
I. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
Mr Patial made several submissions which I have not addressed. I consider it unnecessary to burden these already lengthy reasons for judgment with a refutation of points which are irrelevant or which are covered by the non-acceptance of other submissions which have been addressed.
However, it would be remiss not to mention that Mr Patial has made a series of allegations of misconduct against Mr Pall in this proceeding and has suggested that Mr Pall has contravened the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW). Such contraventions are said to flow from matters of fact which it has been unnecessary to determine but which on their face appear incapable of supporting allegations of such gravity. The peripheral relevance of the facts said to support those ad hominem attacks is demonstrated by Mr Patial’s decision not to seek to cross-examine Mr Pall despite foreshadowing an application to do so.
Regrettably, this is not the first occasion on which this has happened: see Patial (No 1) at [61] to [62].
J. COSTS
The companies seek an order for the payment of their costs on an indemnity basis, on the basis that the position that Mr Patial took in each proceeding was hopeless and doomed to fail. It is well-established that the commencement or continuation of proceedings that are doomed to fail may provide a basis for an award of costs on an indemnity basis: see, e.g., Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 801; (1993) 46 FCR 225 at 233 to 234 (Sheppard J).
In the present case, the context includes the nature of the proceedings and in particular the low threshold for establishing the existence of a genuine dispute (see [160] above). In In the matter of Modern Wholesale Jewellery Pty Ltd; In the matter of Global Austral Pty Ltd; In the matter of Modern Wholesale Jewellery Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 236, Black J explained at [48]:
... The case law permits an order for indemnity costs in respect of an application to set aside a creditor’s statutory demand which involves the improper use of the statutory demand procedure or persistence in the claim where it should have been apparent to the defendant that there was a genuine dispute as to the debt claimed. In CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Pty Ltd v APRA Consulting Pty Ltd above at [19], Barrett J referred to the warning previously given by Santow J in several judgments that a creditor who issued a statutory demand in respect of a genuinely disputed debt was at risk of indemnity costs, where it put the applicant to set aside the statutory demand to expense by doing so. His Honour there noted that the party which issued a statutory demand might, in some circumstances, be entitled to test the other party’s claim that the debt was genuinely disputed, but also noted that that principle had a limit to it and that there were cases which were “so devoid of prospects of success as to be perverse” and that, if a defendant is put on notice of an “obvious and irremediable weakness in its position” and does not withdraw a statutory demand, it may well be appropriate for the court to award costs to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis. In Soudan Lane Pty Ltd v Glen Bradshaw t/as Pacific Coast Digital [2007] NSWSC 772 at [4]–[5], White J again observed that creditors are often ill-advised to proceed with a statutory demand once plausible grounds for a dispute are asserted, and they risk an order for indemnity costs if they do so: see also Professional Advantage Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Commission [2007] NSWSC 607; R2M Pty Ltd v Gourlay [2011] FCA 168; Re Suters Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1051; Re Scahill & Co Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 712. In this case, Modern and Global have been put to the costs of these applications to set the three creditor’s statutory demands aside, heard over two days of substantive submissions (and a third day which was adjourned by reason of events affecting Mr Dimitriou), to which they would not have been exposed had the creditor’s statutory demands not been served or had those demands been promptly withdrawn.
(emphasis in original)
In Liberty Oil Convenience Pty Ltd v Golden Roo Company Ltd [2024] FCA 757, Wigney J observed at [8]:
The special features of proceedings under s 459G of the Act bear on the question of costs where the party which issued the statutory demand presses the demand and opposes the setting aside of the demand. Indeed, it has often been said that, because the “threshold for establishing a genuine dispute is low, creditors are often ill-advised to proceed with a statutory demand once plausible grounds for a dispute are asserted”: Sounden Lane at [5]. Indeed, they face the risk of indemnity costs if they do so: Polaroid Australia Pty Ltd v Minicomp Pty Ltd (1998) 16 ACLC 529 at 536; CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Pty Ltd v APRA Consulting Pty Ltd (2003) 47 ACSR 100 at [19]; Souden Lane at [5]. A “defendant, on having an obvious and irremediable weakness in its position pointed out, ought to withdraw the statutory demand”: CGI Information Systems at [22].
(emphasis in original)
I am satisfied that indemnity costs orders are appropriate in each of the present proceedings because:
(1)the existence of a genuine dispute was pellucid;
(2)Mr Patial was put on notice that his position that the NSD970/2025 originating application was non-compliant was contrary to authority and that the service of the demands was an abuse of process ( [40], [55] and [75] above);
(3)Mr Patial’s position that service had not been effected despite his own evidence that he had received the originating documents within the statutory period was, as noted above, devoid of merit;
(4)as noted above, Mr Patial’s service of the demands and his commencement of the winding up proceedings in the face of his knowledge of the existence of a genuine dispute was an abuse of process; and
(5)by dint of the above positions, and steps, that were taken by Mr Patial, the companies were subjected to costs of litigation that ought never have been necessary to commence (in the case of proceeding NSD970/2025) or to defend (in the case of the winding up proceedings).
K. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the demands should be set aside and the winding up originating processes should be dismissed. The ancillary order discussed at [179] to [180] above should also be made. In each proceeding Mr Patial should pay the costs of the opposing party or parties on an indemnity basis. I will make orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty-nine (189) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Goodman.
Associate:
Dated: 4 August 2025
SCHEDULE TO [2025] FCA 884 - 20 MAY 2025 INVOICES AND AMOUNTS SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID, AND AMOUNT SAID TO BE OWING AS PER THE 29 MAY 2025 DEMANDS
A. Legal services invoices
| Invoice No. | Description of Services Rendered | Entity Responsibility | Amount | Part payment received | Amount owing as per the demand | ||
| 1 | PP-KL-0525-1 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during April 2019, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $6,732.50 | $2,693.00 | $4,039.50 | |
| 2 | PP-KL-0525-2 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during May 2019, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $7,133.40 | $2,853.36 | $4,280.04 | |
| 3 | PP-KL-0525-3 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during June 2019, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $9,483.00 | $3,793.20 | $5,689.80 | |
| 4 | PP-KL-0525-4 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during August 2019, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $9,414.40 | $3,765.76 | $5,648.64 | |
| 5 | PP-KL-0525-5 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during September 2019, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $11,420.10 | $4,568.04 | $6,852.06 | |
| 6 | PP-KL-0525-6 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during October 2019, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $20,349.78 | $8,139.91 | $12,209.87 | |
| 7 | PP-KL-0525-7 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during November 2019, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $20,134.50 | $8,053.80 | $12,080.70 | |
| 8 | PP-KL-0525-8 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during December 2019 and January 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $28,438.10 | $11,375.24 | $17,062.86 | |
| 9 | PP-KL-0525-9 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during February 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $13,387.50 | $5,355.00 | $8,032.50 | |
| 10 | PP-KL-0525-10 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during March 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $8,916.00 | $3,566.40 | $5,349.60 | |
| 11 | PP-KL-0525-11 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during April 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $10,243.00 | $4,097.20 | $6,145.80 | |
| 12 | PP-KL-0525-12 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during May 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $34,073.94 | $13,629.58 | $20,444.36 | |
| 13 | PP-KL-0525-13 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during June 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $15,616.47 | $6,246.59 | $9,369.88 | |
| 14 | PP-KL-0525-14 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during July 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $9,373.00 | $3,749.20 | $5,623.80 | |
| 15 | PP-KL-0525-15 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during August 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $16,790.00 | -- | $16,790.00 | |
| 16 | PP-KL-0525-16 | Provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during May 2020 – August 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $996.85 | -- | $996.85 | |
| 17 | PP-KL-0525-17 | Sundries regarding the provision of legal services by Prateek Patial to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during April 2019 to August 2020, in relation to the following matters … Services billed at $300/hour plus GST = $330/hour | Kailash | $8,415.00 | -- | $8,415.00 | |
| Total: | $230,917.54 | $81,886.28 | $149,031.26 | ||||
B. Shared services invoices
| Invoice No. | Description of Services Rendered | Entity Responsibility | Amount | Amount owing as per the demand | |
| 18-21 (IT Services) | PP-KL-0525-IT-KLC PP-KL-0525-IT-KIPP PP-KL-0525-IT-KH PP-KL-0525-IT-KIGP | Provision of IT Services to Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd during the period April 2019 to August 2020. Hourly rate: $300 + GST = $330 per hour Total Hours worked: 1,420 hours | Kailash 50% Koala 45% Kailasam 2.5% Kuber 2.5% | $234,300.00 $210,870.00 $11,715.00 $11,715.00 $468,600.00 | $468,600.00 |
| 22-25 (Distributing Calendar) | PP-KL-0525-DC-KLC PP-KL-0525-DC-KIPP PP-KL-0525-DC-KH PP-KL-0525-DC-KIGP | Marketing and distribution of promotional magnetic calendars on behalf of the debtor company at the following religious and community locations: ➢ Sikh Temple, Glenwood, NSW ➢ Sydney Murugan Temple, Mays Hill, NSW ➢ Sri Mandir Hindu Temple, Auburn, NSW ➢ Sai Hindu Temple, Regents Park, NSW Hourly rate: $300 + GST = $330 per hour Service period: November 2019 to approximately February 2020 Total Hours worked: 100 hours | Kailash 50% Koala 45% Kailasam 2.5% Kuber 2.5% | $16,500.00 $14,850.00 $825.00 $825.00 $33,000.00 | $33,000.00 |
| 26-29 (Assembling Furniture) | PP-KL-0525-AFI-KLC PP-KL-0525-AFI-KIPP PP-KL-0525-AFI-KH PP-KL-0525-AFI-KIGP | In or about February 2020, the creditor assisted Director Amit Pall with Inspecting, and purchasing, new office furniture (tables and chairs) from Officeworks Northmead NSW (2 Windsor Rd, Northmead NSW 2152); Assembling said furniture at the business premises shared by the associated entities. Hourly rate: $300 + GST = $330 per hour Total Hours worked: 30 hours | Kailash 50% Koala 45% Kailasam 2.5% Kuber 2.5% | $4,950.00 $4,455.00 $247.50 $247.50 $9,900.00 | $9,900.00 |
| 30-33 (Removing Old Furniture) | PP-KL-0525-ROFI-KLC | In or about February 2020, the creditor provided physical labour and logistical support services, which included: ➢ Dismantling and removing old office furniture including tables and chairs; ➢ Using his personal vehicle to transport the old furniture from the office; ➢ Storing the furniture in his personal garage pending council pickup. Hourly rate: $300 + GST = $330 per hour Total Hours worked: 8 hours | Kailash 50% Koala 45% Kailasam 2.5% Kuber 2.5% | $1,320.00 $1,188.00 $66.00 $66.00 $2,640.00 | $2,640.00 |
| 34-37 (Moving Office Files to Kennards Storage Box) | PP-KL-0525-MOFI-KLC PP-KL-0525-MOFI-KIPP PP-KL-0525-MOFI-KH PP-KL-0525-MOFI-KIGP | In or about June 2020, the creditor provided manual and vehicle-based support services which included: ➢ Transporting office file boxes, leftover items from Deepawali Mela, and promotional banners; ➢ Making two round trips using his personal vehicle from the office to Kennards Storage Box, Wentworthville (409 Great Western Hwy, Wentworthville NSW 2145); ➢ Delivering and securing storage of materials for all associated entities. Hourly rate: $300 + GST = $330 per hour Total Hours worked: 8 hours | Kailash 50% Koala 45% Kailasam 2.5% Kuber 2.5% | $2,376.00 $132.00 $66.00 $66.00 $2,640.00 | $2,640.00 |
| 38-41 (Shifting Office Furniture) | PP-KL-0525-SOFI-KLC | Between May 2019 and July 2019, the creditor provided physical assistance and spatial organisation services which included: ➢ Shifting and rearranging office furniture; ➢ Reorganising paralegal desks to room corners and solicitor desks to designated sides of the office; ➢ Enhancing space utility and departmental allocation within the shared work environment. Hourly rate: $300 + GST = $330 per hour Total Hours worked: 14 hours | Kailash 50% Koala 45% Kailasam 2.5% Kuber 2.5% | $2,310.00 $2,079.00 $115.50 $115.50 $4,620.00 | $6,930.00 (being the sum of $4,620.00, $2,079.00, $115.50 and $115.50) |
| 41-45 (Deepawali Event) | PP-KL-0525-DMSI-KLC PP-KL-0525-DMSI-KIPP PP-KL-0525-DMSI-KH PP-KL-0525-DMSI-KIGP | Between June 2019 and November 2019, the creditor provided extensive services involving: ➢ Organizing, arranging, and operating marketing stalls at the Hindu Diwali Mela events; ➢ Work performed during extended weekend hours (6:00 AM – 9:00 PM) including logistics and representation; ➢ Event locations included: 13 October 2019 (Sunday) – Rouse Hill Town Centre, NSW 20 October 2019 (Sunday) – Bellavista Farms, NSW 3 November 2019 (Sunday) – Strathfield Park, NSW Hourly rate: $300 + GST = $330 per hour Total Hours worked: 250 hours | Kailash 50% Koala 45% Kailasam 2.5% Kuber 2.5% | $41,250.00 $37,125.00 $2,062.50 $2,062.50 $82,500.00 | $82,500.00 |
| Total | $603,900.00 | $606,210.00 | |||
I note that:
(1)there is a discrepancy between the total amounts in the 20 May 2025 invoices and the demands as follows:
Invoices: Demands: Part A: $149,031.26 $149,031.26 Part B: $603,900.00 $606,210.00 Total: $752,931.26 $755,241.26 ; (2)the difference between the totals is due to the Kailash demand including an amount of $4,620.00 for “Shifting Office Furniture”, whereas the 20 May 2025 invoice to Kailash for “Shifting Office Furniture” (PP-KL-0525-SOFI-KLC) included an amount of $2,310.00 for that item; and
(3)the totals in (1) deal only with the legal services and the shared services. The logo services of $3,300.00 need to be added to obtain a total for the invoices of $756,231.26 and a total for the demands of $758,541.26, a difference of $2,310.00.
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
NSD 970 of 2025
Plaintiffs
Fourth Plaintiff:
KAILASAM HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 158 712 433
24
7