Oswal v ANZ and Ors (Security for costs) - [2012] VSC 356

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

LIST D

S CI 2011 4653

RADHIKA PANKAJ OSWAL	Plaintiff
v
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ACN 005 357 522) AND OTHERS	Defendants

S CI 2012 1995

PANKAJ OSWAL	Plaintiff
V
IAN MENZIES CARSON & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9, 17 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 August 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Oswal v ANZ & Ors (Security for costs)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 356

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Security for costs – Appeals from Associate Judge - Foreign plaintiffs – Proceeds of sale of secured assets held in escrow accounts – Appeals allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
2011/4653
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Durack SC Ms K J Williams	Jones Day, Watson Mangioni Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the First to Fourth Defendants	Mr J Karkar QC Mr S Parmenter	Freehills
For the Sixth Defendant	Mr D J O’Callaghan SC Mr C M Archibald Mr G P Harris	Middletons
For the Seventh Defendant	Mr R W Douglas	Clayton Utz
2012/1955
For the Plaintiff	Mr A J L Bannon SC Mr J M Ross	Kliger Partners as agents for Watson Mangioni Lawyers
For the Defendants	Mr J Karkar QC Mr S Parmenter	Freehills

HIS HONOUR:

On 20 July 2012 Efthim AsJ made an order for the payment of security for costs in each of these two proceedings. Each of the plaintiffs sought leave to appeal under Rule 77.06(2.1). On 9 August 2012 I heard submissions on the leave applications. On 17 August 2012 I granted leave in each proceeding. Counsel for the respective parties indicated that their submissions on the leave applications also stood as their submissions on the substantive appeals.

On the applications before Efthim AsJ a number of matters were dealt with, but on the appeals before me there is only a single issue, which might be encapsulated in the following question: Do the defendants already have sufficient security for their costs?

Each of the plaintiffs resides in the United Arab Emirates. It was accepted both before Efthim AsJ and before me that enforcement there would be difficult if not impossible. Neither of the plaintiffs has unencumbered assets of any significance in Australia. Each of the plaintiffs is the subject of very large claims by the Australian Taxation Office. There is no evidence that either of the plaintiffs is impoverished or that their actions will be stultified if security is ordered.

The case for security for costs against each plaintiff is strong, indeed compelling, absent consideration of the sole ground upon which security was resisted before me, being the contention that the defendants already have sufficient security for their costs.

Background

Prior to the events which are the subject of the two proceedings, Radhika Oswal was the owner of 35 percent of the share capital of a company then named Burrup Holdings Limited (BHL). BHL in turn owned 100 percent of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Oswal v ANZ and Ors (Security for costs) and more:

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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] VSC 356
Decision Date: 24 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Oswal and others, who were foreign plaintiffs, and ANZ and others. The dispute centred on the requirement for the plaintiffs to provide security for costs, which was contested by the plaintiffs. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs were required to provide security for costs under the Federal Court Rules. The plaintiffs argued that they were not required to provide such security, while the defendants contended that the plaintiffs should provide security for costs. The court had to decide whether the plaintiffs' foreign status and the fact that the proceeds of sale of secured assets were held in escrow accounts impacted the requirement for security for costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not required to provide security for costs. The court held that the fact that the plaintiffs were foreign did not impact the requirement for security for costs. Furthermore, the court held that the proceeds of sale of secured assets held in escrow accounts were not relevant to the requirement for security for costs. The court also held that the appeals from the Associate Judge's decision were allowed, and the plaintiffs were not required to provide security for costs.

The court's decision resulted in the appeals being allowed, and the plaintiffs were not required to provide security for costs. The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the plaintiffs' foreign status and the proceeds of sale of secured assets held in escrow accounts did not impact the requirement for security for costs under the Federal Court Rules.

Orders