Hurst, in the matter of Lloyds Curry Shop Pty Ltd (in liq) v Prasad (No 3) [2023] FCA 1174

Hurst, in the matter of Lloyds Curry Shop Pty Ltd (in liq) v Prasad (No 3) [2023] FCA 1174

Some interlocutory applications were allowed in whole or part, including leave to amend the statement of claim with limits, and extension of freezing orders against some but not all respondents. The Court refused further asset disclosure orders, dismissed the review of the Registrar’s decision regarding notices to produce, and ordered indemnity costs on the security for costs application due to respondents' imprudent conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceeding (corporations/insolvency) / Ruling on Various Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial
Outcome
Some interlocutory applications allowed in whole or in part; some refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Amend Pleadings' 'freezing Orders and Ancillary Asset Disclosure' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' "review of Registrar's Decision"]
['corporations Law' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['application to Amend Pleadings' 'freezing Orders and Ancillary Asset Disclosure' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' "review of Registrar's Decision"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceeding (corporations/insolvency) / Ruling on Various Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend the statement of claim, and to what extent' 'Whether to continue or discharge freezing orders against certain respondents' 'Whether further asset disclosure orders should be made' "Whether the Registrar's decision on notices to produce should be overturned" 'Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis for security for costs applications']

Ratio Decidendi

Some interlocutory applications were allowed in whole or part, including leave to amend the statement of claim with limits, and extension of freezing orders against some but not all respondents. The Court refused further asset disclosure orders, dismissed the review of the Registrar’s decision regarding notices to produce, and ordered indemnity costs on the security for costs application due to respondents' imprudent conduct.

Court Disposition

Some interlocutory applications allowed in whole or in part; some refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to amend statement of claim granted except for the proposed particulars to RDASOC [110]; liberty given to replead; applicants to pay costs thrown away by this amendment.' 'Application for further asset disclosure dismissed with applicants to pay third and fifth respondents’ costs.' 'Applicants to confer on...