Trajkovski v Asiapac Securities Pte Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1432

Trajkovski v Asiapac Securities Pte Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1432

Leave to amend was granted only for the proposed amendments alleging breach of fiduciary duty and Asiapac's knowing involvement because, after the related default judgment was set aside, res judicata and issue estoppel arguments did not arise, the claims were bona fide and had reasonable prospects, and the Barnes v Addy issue was to be argued in the related proceedings. Leave to add the wrongful detention amendments was refused because Asiapac had been restrained by court order from dealing with the goods between 9 May 2014 and 1 August 2014, so those amendments could not be maintained. Security for costs against Ashlee and the Trajkovskis was refused because, although Ashlee's threshold...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Motions Concerning Leave to Amend Pleadings and Security for Costs / Interlocutory Hearing on Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion Filed 17 April 2015 and Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 20 April 2015
Outcome
Plaintiffs granted limited leave to amend; defendant's and plaintiffs' applications for security for costs refused; parts of defendant's notice of motion stood over; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Summons and Points of Claim' 'security for Costs' 'threshold Issue Under S 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) and UCPR 42.21(1)(d)' 'barnes V Addy Knowing Assistance' 'fiduciary Duty' 'conversion' 'caveat Withdrawal']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'equity' 'real Property'] ['leave to Amend Summons and Points of Claim' 'security for Costs' 'threshold Issue Under S 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) and UCPR 42.21(1)(d)' 'barnes V Addy Knowing Assistance' 'fiduciary Duty' 'conversion' 'caveat Withdrawal']

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

Civil Procedure Motions Concerning Leave to Amend Pleadings and Security for Costs / Interlocutory Hearing on Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion Filed 17 April 2015 and Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 20 April 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should have leave under s 64(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to amend the summons and points of claim.' 'Whether proposed amendments alleging wrongful detention of goods should be permitted where Asiapac had been restrained by court order from dealing with the goods.' 'Whether proposed amendments alleging that Asiapac was knowingly concerned in breaches of fiduciary duty by Garry Fulton should be permitted.' "Whether Ashlee Holdings Pty Ltd, Mr and Mrs Trajkovski should provide security for Asiapac's costs." "Whether Asiapac, a company incorporated in Singapore, should provide security for the plaintiffs' costs of defending the cross-claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted only for the proposed amendments alleging breach of fiduciary duty and Asiapac's knowing involvement because, after the related default judgment was set aside, res judicata and issue estoppel arguments did not arise, the claims were bona fide and had reasonable prospects, and the Barnes v Addy issue was to be argued in the related proceedings. Leave to add the wrongful detention amendments was refused because Asiapac had been restrained by court order from dealing with the goods between 9 May 2014 and 1 August 2014, so those amendments could not be maintained. Security for costs against Ashlee and the Trajkovskis was refused because, although Ashlee's threshold...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs granted limited leave to amend; defendant's and plaintiffs' applications for security for costs refused; parts of defendant's notice of motion stood over; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["In so far as the plaintiffs' notice of motion filed 17 April 2015 is concerned, the plaintiffs have leave to amend the summons and points of claim as set out in paragraphs [17] to [37] of its points of claim, with the amended summons and amended points of claim to be filed and served within 14 days." 'The Court...