Print Management Australia v Pasupati [2009] NSWSC 964

Print Management Australia v Pasupati [2009] NSWSC 964

Much of the cross-claim against Okill and Raymont was weak and Pasupati had not shown that an order for security would stultify proceedings, nor that impecuniosity was caused by the cross-defendants' conduct. Overlap between claims did not justify refusing security. Security in the amount of $150,000 was appropriate, with the cross-claim stayed against Okill and Raymont pending provision of security. Costs of the application were awarded to Okill and Raymont, to be assessed and paid forthwith.

Parties
Plaintiff / First Cross Defendant: Print Management Australia Pty Ltd; First Defendant / First Cross Plaintiff: Kumareshwara Pasupati; Second Defendant: Tacatan Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: S Satchithananda; Fourth Defendant: K Satchithananda; Fifth Defendant: Krishankumar Sellathurai; Sixth Defendant: Maithili Sellathurai; Seventh Defendant: Michael Hayter; Second Cross Defendant: Phillip Okill; Third Cross Defendant: Brett Stanley Raymont
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs on Cross Claim / Interlocutory (application Hearing and Determination)
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in favour of second and third cross-defendants; cross-claim stayed against them until security provided. Costs of the interlocutory application awarded to second and third cross-defendants, to be assessed and paid forthwith.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Inherent Jurisdiction, Costs, Cross Claims, Impecuniosity, Corporations Law, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Inherent Jurisdiction Costs Cross Claims Impecuniosity Corporations Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Print Management Australia Pty Ltd

Plaintiff / First Cross Defendant

Kumareshwara Pasupati

First Defendant / First Cross Plaintiff

Tacatan Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

S Satchithananda

Third Defendant

K Satchithananda

Fourth Defendant

Krishankumar Sellathurai

Fifth Defendant

Maithili Sellathurai

Sixth Defendant

Michael Hayter

Seventh Defendant

Phillip Okill

Second Cross Defendant

Brett Stanley Raymont

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs on Cross Claim / Interlocutory (application Hearing and Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against cross-claimant under Court's inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether claim had reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether an order for security would stultify proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Much of the cross-claim against Okill and Raymont was weak and Pasupati had not shown that an order for security would stultify proceedings, nor that impecuniosity was caused by the cross-defendants' conduct. Overlap between claims did not justify refusing security. Security in the amount of $150,000 was appropriate, with the cross-claim stayed against Okill and Raymont pending provision of security. Costs of the application were awarded to Okill and Raymont, to be assessed and paid forthwith.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in favour of second and third cross-defendants; cross-claim stayed against them until security provided. Costs of the interlocutory application awarded to second and third cross-defendants, to be assessed and paid forthwith.

Orders

  • Cross-claimant to provide security for costs of the second and third cross-defendants in the sum of $150,000.
  • Cross-claim stayed against second and third cross-defendants until security is provided.