Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 5)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

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:

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2025] FCA 986
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited and another, as applicants, sought an order for security for costs from Perri, the respondent. The applicants argued they faced a significant risk of being unable to meet an order for costs if the proceedings were to continue. The dispute came before the Federal Court, where the applicants raised questions about the solvency of their group companies and the provision of undertakings for costs. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants could demonstrate a risk of being unable to meet a costs order and whether the applicants' financial position warranted requiring one or both to provide an undertaking for costs.

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.