Alstom Limited ACN 000 038 237 v George Sirakas [2012] NSWSC 1064

Alstom Limited ACN 000 038 237 v George Sirakas [2012] NSWSC 1064

The Defendant abandoned his defence and failed to comply with court orders; the evidence established fraudulent breaches of duty and losses substantiated by affidavit and documents. The Court struck out the Defence for want of prosecution, and granted summary judgment for the Plaintiffs, with damages in Euro plus pre-judgment interest and costs, as the Defendant had no arguable defence.

Parties
Plaintiffs: Alstom Limited ACN 000 038 237; Defendant: George Sirakas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Summary Judgment Application; Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Summary judgment for Plaintiffs; Defence struck out; costs awarded to Plaintiffs; liberty to apply reserved for Freezing Orders and funds disposition.
Legal Topics
Summary Disposal, Want of Prosecution, Summary Judgment, Employee Fiduciary Duties, Fraudulent Conduct
Civil Procedure Equity Employment Law Summary Disposal Want of Prosecution Summary Judgment Employee Fiduciary Duties Fraudulent 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alstom Limited ACN 000 038 237

Plaintiffs

George Sirakas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Summary Judgment Application; Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's Defence should be struck out for want of prosecution under UCPR rule 12.7(2)
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted under UCPR rule 13.1 for fraudulent breaches of duty
  3. 3 Quantification of damages in Euro and entitlement to pre-judgment interest under CPA s 100

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant abandoned his defence and failed to comply with court orders; the evidence established fraudulent breaches of duty and losses substantiated by affidavit and documents. The Court struck out the Defence for want of prosecution, and granted summary judgment for the Plaintiffs, with damages in Euro plus pre-judgment interest and costs, as the Defendant had no arguable defence.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for Plaintiffs; Defence struck out; costs awarded to Plaintiffs; liberty to apply reserved for Freezing Orders and funds disposition.

Orders

  • Defendant's Defence to the Amended Statement of Claim struck out under UCPR rule 12.7(2)
  • Judgment for Second Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of €3,707,367 (inclusive of interest)