SPV Capital Pty Ltd v Bhatt & Anor (No 2)

District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: SPV Capital Pty Ltd v Bhatt & Anor (No 2) [2026] NSWDC 355 Hearing dates: 29 September 2026 Date of orders: 29 September 2026 Decision date: 29 September 2026 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Acting Judge Levy SC Decision: (1) Orders (5) and (6) made on 23 September 2026 are rescinded; (2) Default judgment against both defendants is confirmed; (3) Dismissal of the cross claim brought by the defendants; (4) The plaintiff’s damages are assessed at $1,539,315; (5) The default judgment against both defendants in the amount of $340,649.32 is confirmed and the plaintiff should therefore have a further judgment against the defendants in the amount of $1,197,665.68, such that the total quantum against the defendants is the assessed sum of $1,539,315; (6) The defendants are to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff in these proceedings as agreed or assessed; (7) The exhibits may be returned; (8) Liberty to apply for further or other orders if required; (9) The Registrar is to forward a copy of these orders to the defendants by email to their email addresses which are known to the Court. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 58(2). Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.16(3A), (3B) Cases Cited: SPV Capital Pty Ltd v Bhatt & Anor [2026] NSWDC 346 Category: Consequential orders Parties: SPV Capital Pty Ltd

(Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant) Ashish Hiteshkumar Bhatt (First Defendant / First Cross-Claimant) Shruti Gunavantray Vyas (Second Defendant / Second Cross-Claimant) Representation: Counsel: Mr E Ball (Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant) Solicitors: Vincent Young (Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant) First Defendant / First Cross-Claimant (no appearance) Second Defendant / Second Cross-Claimant (no-appearance) File Number(s): 2024/00145519 Publication restriction: None Judgment On 23 September 2026, the principal judgment was delivered in these proceedings whereby orders were made in favour of the plaintiff: SPV Capital Pty Ltd v Bhatt & Anor [2026] NSWDC 346. These reasons should be read in conjunction with that decision. Orders on 23 September 2026 On 23 September 2026, the following orders were made: Default judgment against both defendants is confirmed; Dismissal of the cross claim brought by the defendants; The plaintiff’s damages are assessed at $1,539,315; The sum of $340,649.32 is to be credited to the defendants as a set-off against the plaintiff’s assessed damages on account of payments already received; After set-off, judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants in the adjusted sum of $1,197,665.68; The defendants are to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff in these proceedings as agreed or assessed; The exhibits may be returned; Liberty to apply for further or other orders

if required. Subsequent events On 24 September 2026, the solicitor for the plaintiff contacted the defendants and the Court by email to point out the judgment included an unproven error of assumption that came from the defendants’ written submissions: Exhibit “A” on this application. The erroneous assumption was to the effect that the sum of $340,649.32 had been paid to the plaintiff and needed to be offset from the plaintiff’s claim following the dismissal of the cross claim. At the conclusion of submissions at the hearing, that assumption was not identified in submissions in reply as being erroneous and those circumstances led to the present application to amend the primary judgment: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 36.16(3A) and (3B). On identifying the error of assumption, the solicitor for the plaintiff sought an amendment to the final order made on 23 September 2026. The hearing of that application was fixed for 29 September 2026. Hearing of 29 September 2026 The defendants did not appear when the matter was listed for hearing this morning. The defendants had been granted leave to appear via AVL. I am satisfied that the defendants have been made aware of the purpose of today’s listing: Exhibit “A” on this application. The solicitor for the plaintiff prepared written submissions for today’s hearing. Disposition The primary judgment delivered on 23 September

2026 should be amended to read as follows: 233. The effect of my findings on the cross claim is that the defendants are not entitled to an assessment of any damages Set-off on quantum assessment 234. There is no set-off available to the defendants to be applied against the plaintiff’s claim 235. For the above reasons, the cross claim by the defendants should be dismissed. Having read the submissions provided on behalf of the plaintiff with this application, I am satisfied that the dictates of justice require that the amendments to the final orders as sought by the plaintiff should be made: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 58(2). It follows that previous orders (5) and (6) should be rescinded. Where justification has been shown for the orders made on 23 September 2026 to be amended, it follows that the costs of the application to amend to correct the identified error should be paid by the defendants: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.1 Orders For the above reasons, I make the following corrective orders: Orders (5) and (6) made on 23 September 2026 are rescinded; Default judgment against both defendants is confirmed; Dismissal of the cross claim brought by the defendants; The plaintiff’s damages are assessed at $1,539,315; The default judgment against both defendants in the amount of $340,649.32 is confirmed and the plaintiff should therefore have a further

judgment against the defendants in the amount of $1,197,665.68, such that the total quantum against the defendants is the assessed sum of $1,539,315; The defendants are to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff in these proceedings as agreed or assessed; The exhibits may be returned; Liberty to apply for further or other orders if required; The Registrar is to forward a copy of these orders to the defendants by email to their email addresses which are known to the Court. ** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 29 September 2026