HME Services Pty Ltd v Ortado [2019] NSWSC 1325

HME Services Pty Ltd v Ortado [2019] NSWSC 1325

Because the plaintiff adduced evidence establishing irregular payments to bank accounts identified as the defendant's accounts or accounts established by the defendant, the defendant had repaid part of the amount, no defence had been filed, the defendant's solicitor indicated that no defence would be filed and judgment was not opposed, and Ms Harris gave evidence of her belief that there was no possible defence, the Court was satisfied that summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for the established amount plus interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment / Notice of Motion Filed on 9 August 2019 Seeking Summary Judgment Pursuant to R 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $235,890.05 inclusive of interest; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, with indemnity costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'no Defence' 'misappropriation of Employer Moneys' 'breach of Employment Contract' 'breach of Fiduciary Duties' 'corporations Act S 182' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'employment Law' 'corporations Law'] ['summary Judgment' 'no Defence' 'misappropriation of Employer Moneys' 'breach of Employment Contract' 'breach of Fiduciary Duties' 'corporations Act S 182' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Application for Summary Judgment / Notice of Motion Filed on 9 August 2019 Seeking Summary Judgment Pursuant to R 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should have summary judgment against the defendant under r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the defendant had any defence to claims arising from irregular payments made to bank accounts set up by the defendant.' 'Whether the costs of the proceedings should be ordered on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff adduced evidence establishing irregular payments to bank accounts identified as the defendant's accounts or accounts established by the defendant, the defendant had repaid part of the amount, no defence had been filed, the defendant's solicitor indicated that no defence would be filed and judgment was not opposed, and Ms Harris gave evidence of her belief that there was no possible defence, the Court was satisfied that summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for the established amount plus interest.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $235,890.05 inclusive of interest; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, with indemnity costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $235,890.05 inclusive of interest.' "Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'Reserve the questions of whether the costs of the proceedings should be on an indemnity basis and stand the matter over to the applications list...