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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 1080
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.