Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 6)

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 6) [2025] FCA 1080  

File number(s): NSD 660 of 2021
Judgment of: MOORE J
Date of judgment: 3 September 2025
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – security for costs – where previous decision to the effect that no security would be ordered if certain undertakings provided – where undertakings in that form now provided – application for security dismissed – where explanation had been required in respect of potentially misleading statements as to the true financial position of the applicants – where the further explanation provided was unsatisfactory and necessitated further order – where no satisfactory and comprehensive explanation of how the misleading submissions came to be made was provided

Cases cited:

Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 3) [2025] FCA 934

Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 5) [2025] FCA 986

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 18
Date of last submissions:  2 September 2025
Date of hearing: 1 May 2025, 26 August 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

UPON:

(a)the giving of an undertaking by the first applicant dated 26 August 2025 and provided to the Court, being an undertaking to the first, second, third, sixth, eighth and eleventh respondents (the relevant respondents) and to the Court to meet any obligation of the second applicant pursuant to any costs order in these proceedings in favour of any of the relevant respondents;

(b)the giving of an undertaking by Athanaseris Holdings Pty Limited dated 22 August 2025 and provided to the Court, being an undertaking to the relevant respondents and to the Court that, in the event and to the extent that the assets of the first applicant are insufficient to meet any obligation in relation to any costs orders in these proceedings in favour of any of the relevant respondents (including any obligation pursuant to the undertaking in (a) above), Athanaseris Holdings Pty Limited will forgive the debt owed to it by the first applicant to the extent necessary to enable the first applicant to meet that obligation; and

(c)the giving of an undertaking by Athanaseris Holdings Pty Limited dated 22 August 2025 and provided…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited v Perri (No 6) 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 1080
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited as the plaintiff and Perri as the defendant. The dispute centred around an application for security for costs by the respondents. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant the respondents' application for security for costs after the applicants had provided certain undertakings that were contingent on not being required to provide security.

The legal issues before the court included whether the undertakings provided by the applicants were sufficient and whether there were misleading statements regarding the financial position of the applicants. The court had previously indicated that no security would be ordered if certain undertakings were provided. However, the applicants had made potentially misleading statements about their financial position, necessitating further explanation. The applicants provided additional information, which was deemed unsatisfactory by the court. The court required a comprehensive explanation for how the misleading statements were made, which was not provided.

The court found that although the applicants had provided undertakings as required, their explanations for the misleading statements were unsatisfactory. The court dismissed the application for security for costs. The court made no order as to costs. The orders were that the application for security for costs be dismissed and there be no order as to costs. The entry of these orders is governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application by the relevant respondents for security for costs be dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

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.