//
[2025] NSWSC 303
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-04-01
Stevenson J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Dracoma Pty Ltd v Changela (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 303
Hearing dates: On the papers; written submissions 21 and 28 March 2025
Date of orders: 1 April 2025
Decision date: 01 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision: Second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings; no order as to costs of the first and third defendants.
Catchwords: COSTS – party/party – general rule that costs follow the event – application of the rule and discretion – where plaintiff had mixed success on multiplicity of issues – where plaintiff failed against first and third defendants, but no order made as to costs because of role played by those defendants
Cases Cited: Dracoma Pty Ltd v Changela [2025] NSWSC 83 Dracoma Pty Ltd v Changela (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 216
Category: Costs
Parties: Dracoma Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Radhika Rajan Changela (First Defendant)
Sweta Prashant Changela (Second Defendant)
Vijay Chandrashanker Pandya (Third Defendant)
Prashant Girishbhai Changela (Fourth Defendant)
Rajan Girishbhai Changela (Fifth Defendant)
Changela Food Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant)
Vijay Pandya Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
G Laughton SC / J Hynes (Plaintiff)
Dr A J Greinke (Defendants)
Solicitors:
William James (Plaintiff)
Lodhia Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2023/298052
I gave judgment in this matter on 21 February 2025. [1] I published a short supplementary judgment on 17 March 2025. [2]
I am now dealing with the costs of the proceedings.
I shall use the same abbreviations as in my earlier judgments.
The parties had mixed success on the multiplicity of issues in the proceedings. Dracoma succeeded in relation to its voidable transaction claim, apart from its claim against Prashant for the $614,000 sent to India.
It failed in relation to a number of issues but, ultimately, obtained the following judgments:
(a) that Sweta and Prashant pay it $400,502.53, including interest of $43,884.53; (b) that Prashant and Rajan pay it $217,179.11, including interest of $23,797.11; (c) that Changela Food Pty Ltd pay it $67,383.45, including interest of $7,383.45; and (d) that Vijay Pandya Pty Ltd pay it $1,151,133.97, including interest of $126,133.97.
Dracoma obtained no relief against Radhika and Dr Pandya himself, and its claims against those two individuals was dismissed.
There is no dispute that Sweta, Prashant, Rajan, Changela Food Pty Ltd and Vijay Pandya Pty Ltd should pay Dracoma’s costs of the proceedings.
Dracoma seeks an order for indemnity costs in relation to Sweta and Rajan on the basis of offers of compromise served on those individuals on 31 July 2024. Those offers, in effect, invited those parties to capitulate and do not, in my opinion, provide a basis upon which an order for indemnity costs should be made.
As Dracoma failed against each of Radhika and Dr Pandya, on the face of things, it should pay their costs.
However, in relation to both individuals, my conclusion is that there should be no order as to costs.
As to Radhika, she was at all times a director of the Company. Although she received no payments, she also played no significant role in the proceedings and was in any event represented by lawyers who acted for the other defendants.
As to Dr Pandya, he came to court disputing that he was in fact a director of the Company, However, in the circumstances I set out at [41]-[49] of my 21 February 2025 judgment, Dr Pandya ultimately accepted that he had acted as director of the Company.
Dr Pandya was one of the controlling minds of the Company and was obviously involved in decisions of his own company, Vijay Pandya Pty Ltd, to enter the transactions that led to Dracoma having its greatest success, in dollar terms, in the proceedings.
In those circumstances, my orders are:
(a) the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings; and (b) there be no order as to the costs of the first and third defendants.
**********
Dracoma Pty Ltd v Changela [2025] NSWSC 83.
Dracoma Pty Ltd v Changela (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 216.
Typographical error corrected at [5(a)].
Dracoma Pty Ltd
Changela