Print Management Australia Pty Ltd v Pasupati

[2008] NSWSC 342

CITATION:	Print Management Australia Pty Ltd v Pasupati [2008] NSWSC 342
HEARING DATE(S):	11/04/08
JUDGMENT DATE :	15 April 2008
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division Corporations List
JUDGMENT OF:	Barrett J
DECISION:	Freezing orders discharged
CATCHWORDS:	INJUNCTIONS - freezing orders - where order made ex parte - whether plaintiff discharged duty of disclosure on ex parte application - whether freezing orders should be re-imposed - whether good arguable case of breach of directors' duties - whether plaintiff has shown real apprehension of dissipation of assets that would otherwise be available to meet any judgment
LEGISLATION CITED:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rule 25.14(1)(b)
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
CASES CITED:	Acquasun Pty Ltd v Coverdale Ram Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1146 Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 Thomas A Edison Limited v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 67
PARTIES:	Print Management Australia Pty Ltd - Plaintiff Kumareshwara Pasupati - First Defendant Tacatan Pty Ltd - Second Defendant S Satchithananda - Third Defendant K Satchithananda - Fourth Defendant Krishankumar Sellathurai - Fifth Defendant Maithili Sellathurai - Sixth Defendant Michael Hayter - Seventh Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2059/08
COUNSEL:	Mr B A M Connell/Mr R M Higgins - Plaintiff Mr A R Moses/Mr T Saunders - First Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Fox & Staniland - Plaintiff Thomas Playford - First Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

TUESDAY 15 APRIL 2008

2059/08 PRINT MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v KUMARESHAWARA PASUPATI & 6 ORS

JUDGMENT

1 Freezing orders were made in respect of the property of several defendants upon an ex parte application made by the plaintiff on 27 March 2008. The orders against all defendants other than the first have been dissolved by consent.

2 On 11 April 2008 I heard applications as to the future of the orders affecting the first defendant.

3 The cause of action the plaintiff asserts against the first defendant is based on alleged breach of duties owed by him as a director of the plaintiff. The first defendant is one of three shareholders in the plaintiff. He has a shareholding interest of about 42.5 percent. The other shareholders are Mr Okill (52.5 percent) and Mr Raymont (5 percent). All three of them are also directors. The first defendant was the chief financial officer of the plaintiff until 10 December 2007 when his employment was terminated. Mr Okill is and was the managing director.

4 The first defendant says that the orders obtained ex parte must be discharged because the plaintiff did not comply with its obligation to put all relevant matters before the court. Several contentions were put forward under this heading. It is sufficient to mention one of them.

5 The evidence put before the court by the plaintiff on the ex parte application referred to the first defendant's co-ownership with his former wife of a "large palatial property" in "a very expensive part of Strathfield" referred to as "the golden mile". The transcript shows that at the ex parte…