Patel v Pleash [2025] FCA 77

Patel v Pleash [2025] FCA 77

The appointment of Mr Pleash as administrator was invalid because iLend did not have a presently enforceable security interest, was not entitled to the claimed fees, and invoked s 436C for an impermissible purpose of debt collection, amounting to an abuse of process. Mr Salim and iLend engaged in unconscionable and misleading or deceptive conduct under the ASIC Act, causing loss to the plaintiffs, who are entitled to compensation.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Ravi Rameshkumar Patel; Second Plaintiff: Salima Mohmedali Lakhani; Third Plaintiff: Jubilee Infrastructure Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) ACN 645 415 774; First Defendant: Blair Alexander Pleash; Second Defendant: iLend Capital Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Marwan Salim
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial/civil Corporations / Australian Consumer Law / Contract / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs; appointment of administrator declared invalid; damages and costs ordered against Mr Pleash, iLend Capital Pty Ltd, and Marwan Salim.
Legal Topics
Validity of Administrator Appointment, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct, Security/enforcement Under Finance Agreements
Corporations Law Contract Law Consumer Law Validity of Administrator Appointment Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Unconscionable Conduct Security/enforcement Under Finance Agreements

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 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravi Rameshkumar Patel

First Plaintiff

Salima Mohmedali Lakhani

Second Plaintiff

Jubilee Infrastructure Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) ACN 645 415 774

Third Plaintiff

Blair Alexander Pleash

First Defendant

iLend Capital Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Marwan Salim

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/civil Corporations / Australian Consumer Law / Contract / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of an administrator under s 436C Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was valid
  2. 2 Proper construction and performance of the iLend Agreement
  3. 3 Whether there was misleading or deceptive conduct or unconscionable conduct under the ASIC Act or ACL

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of Mr Pleash as administrator was invalid because iLend did not have a presently enforceable security interest, was not entitled to the claimed fees, and invoked s 436C for an impermissible purpose of debt collection, amounting to an abuse of process. Mr Salim and iLend engaged in unconscionable and misleading or deceptive conduct under the ASIC Act, causing loss to the plaintiffs, who are entitled to compensation.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs; appointment of administrator declared invalid; damages and costs ordered against Mr Pleash, iLend Capital Pty Ltd, and Marwan Salim.

Orders

  • The cross-claim dated 5 May 2023 dismissed with costs.
  • Fourth defendant redesignated as third plaintiff.