Waterproofing Technologies Pty Ltd v Perri (No 2) [2022] FCA 1293

Waterproofing Technologies Pty Ltd v Perri (No 2) [2022] FCA 1293

The respondents failed to demonstrate any material change of circumstance or provide new material that would warrant varying the existing freezing order. Further, there was inadequate evidence to justify the incurrence of further legal expenses or to establish that the respondents lacked alternative assets to fund those expenses. The interest of justice did not require that the order be varied, and the unexplained and undisclosed breach of the previous order reinforced the refusal to exercise discretion in the respondents' favour.

Parties
First Applicant: Waterproofing Technologies Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Polyseal Waterproofing Victoria Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Luigi Perri; Second Respondent: Millenium Homes Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: CCBM Bare Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Variation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Variation of Orders, Legal Costs, Breach of Court Orders, Corporations and Insolvency
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Variation of Orders Legal Costs Breach of Court Orders Corporations and Insolvency

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waterproofing Technologies Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Polyseal Waterproofing Victoria Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Luigi Perri

First Respondent

Millenium Homes Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

CCBM Bare Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Variation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order should be varied to allow additional legal expense payments
  2. 2 Whether a material change of circumstances or new material exists to justify varying the freezing order
  3. 3 Consequences of admitted breach of the freezing order by respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to demonstrate any material change of circumstance or provide new material that would warrant varying the existing freezing order. Further, there was inadequate evidence to justify the incurrence of further legal expenses or to establish that the respondents lacked alternative assets to fund those expenses. The interest of justice did not require that the order be varied, and the unexplained and undisclosed breach of the previous order reinforced the refusal to exercise discretion in the respondents' favour.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application by the First, Second and Third Respondents, dated 14 October 2022, seeking to amend the freezing orders made 21 July 2021, as amended by the orders made on 21 September 2021, will be dismissed.
  • The First, Second and Third Respondents will pay the First and Second Applicants' costs.