FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 5) [2025] FCA 986
File number(s): NSD 660 of 2021 Judgment of: MOORE J Date of judgment: 20 August 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – security for costs – whether risk that applicants will be unable to meet an order for costs – where first applicant has substantial assets but second applicant does not – whether first applicant should provide an undertaking – where undertaking proffered by Group Managing Director apparently on behalf of another entity – proffering of undertaking not found to constitute an admission – where insolvency of certain group companies insufficient to call into question solvency of other group companies without further evidence – where undertakings need to be perfected – where the applicants’ written submissions require further explanation in light of potentially misleading statements as to the true financial position of the applicants Cases cited: Big Review TV Ltd (in liq) v FC Securities Pty Ltd (2025) FCA 222
Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 3) [2025] FCA 934
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 26 Date of hearing: 1 May 2025 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Simpkins Solicitor for the Applicants: McCabes Lawyers Counsel for the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Eleventh Respondents: Mr S Horgan KC and Mr A Ford Solicitor for the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Eleventh Respondents: Greenwich Legal Counsel for the Ninth Respondent: Mr L Magowan Solicitor for the Ninth Respondent: Schembri + McCluskys ORDERS
NSD 660 of 2021 BETWEEN: WATERPROOFING TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD ACN 152 481 215
First Applicant
POLYSEAL WATERPROOFING VICTORIA PTY LTD ACN 086 669 650
Second Applicant
AND: LUIGI PERRI
First Respondent
CCBM BARE PTY LTD ACN 162 850 731
Second Respondent
MILLENIUM HOMES PTY LTD ACN 096 371 667 (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings be listed for a case management hearing on 26 August 2025 at 9:30 am for the making of any orders consequent upon these reasons for judgment.
2.By 4:00 pm on 22 August 2025, the applicants inform the respondents and the Court whether the undertakings contemplated in these reasons for judgment will be provided, and (if not) indicate the applicants’ position on the question of security for costs in light of these reasons for judgment.
3.By 4:00 pm on 22 August 2025, the applicants file and serve an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the submissions in paragraphs [57] and [59] of the applicants’ written submissions dated 28 April 2025 came to be made.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MOORE J:
This is the third judgment dealing with interlocutory applications heard by me at an omnibus hearing. It should be read with Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 5) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 986
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the applicants, particularly Waterproofing Technologies, could satisfy the court that they faced a risk of being unable to meet an order for costs. The court needed to consider the financial status of the applicants, the solvency of their group companies, and the adequacy of the undertakings provided. The court also had to evaluate the statements made in the applicants' written submissions to determine if they were potentially misleading regarding the financial position of the applicants.
The court concluded that while Waterproofing Technologies had substantial assets, the risk of being unable to meet a costs order was not sufficiently demonstrated. The insolvency of certain group companies did not necessarily indicate the insolvency of other group companies without further evidence. The court also found that the proffering of the undertakings did not constitute an admission of any financial issue. However, the court noted that the applicants' written submissions required further clarification to ensure they did not mislead the court regarding the true financial position of the applicants. The court ordered that the applicants must provide further clarifications and undertake appropriate steps to perfect the financial undertakings.
The final orders of the court required the applicants to inform the court and respondents whether they would provide the necessary undertakings for costs by a specified date. The court also mandated that the applicants file and serve an affidavit explaining potentially misleading statements made in their previous submissions. The proceedings were listed for a case management hearing to address any consequential orders based on these findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceedings be listed for a case management hearing on 26 August 2025 at 9:30 am for the making of any orders consequent upon these reasons for judgment.
2. By 4:00 pm on 22 August 2025, the applicants inform the respondents and the Court whether the undertakings contemplated in these reasons for judgment will be provided, and (if not) indicate the applicants’ position on the question of security for costs in light of these reasons for judgment.
3. By 4:00 pm on 22 August 2025, the applicants file and serve an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the submissions in paragraphs [57] and [59] of the applicants’ written submissions dated 28 April 2025 came to be made.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.