104 Alice Street Pty Limited v Jabamak Pty Limited and Ors [2009] NSWSC 162

104 Alice Street Pty Limited v Jabamak Pty Limited and Ors [2009] NSWSC 162

Further security for costs was refused because the existing security was not insignificant, the plaintiff and any person standing behind it are impecunious and unable to provide further security, and such an order would effectively stultify the litigation and deny access to justice.

Parties
Plaintiff: 104 Alice Street Pty Limited; First Defendant: Jabamak Pty Limited; Second Defendant: MPS Financial Services Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Ignatio Hilellis (also known as Charlie Hill); Fourth Defendant: Geoff Versace; Fifth Defendant: Steven Valtas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for further security for costs dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discretion to Order Security, Impecuniosity, Access to Justice
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Security for Costs Discretion to Order Security Impecuniosity Access to Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

104 Alice Street Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Jabamak Pty Limited

First Defendant

MPS Financial Services Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Ignatio Hilellis (also known as Charlie Hill)

Third Defendant

Geoff Versace

Fourth Defendant

Steven Valtas

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Court exercise its discretion to order further security for costs in circumstances where an existing order for security has been made and the plaintiff is impecunious?

Ratio Decidendi

Further security for costs was refused because the existing security was not insignificant, the plaintiff and any person standing behind it are impecunious and unable to provide further security, and such an order would effectively stultify the litigation and deny access to justice.

Court Disposition

Application for further security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Orders 1 to 10 made in accordance with Short Minutes of Order provided by the parties.
  • Orders 7 and 8 made by the Registrar on 29 October 2008 vacated (mediation and directions hearing).