Denton Tiling Services v Australian Prestige Developments [2004] NSWSC 884

Denton Tiling Services v Australian Prestige Developments [2004] NSWSC 884

No justification in evidence or legal principle to change the consent orders governing $120,000; unusual and inappropriate to order a natural person plaintiff to guarantee costs liability of corporate plaintiff in circumstances pleaded; notice of motion dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Equity / Interlocutory Application—notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; costs ordered in favour of plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['consent Orders' 'security for Costs' 'guarantees for Costs' 'release of Controlled Monies' 'partnership Disputes']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity'] ['consent Orders' 'security for Costs' 'guarantees for Costs' 'release of Controlled Monies' 'partnership Disputes']

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

Equity / Interlocutory Application—notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether $120,000 in controlled monies account should be released to defendants before determination of proceedings' 'Whether a natural person plaintiff should be ordered to guarantee the costs liability of corporate plaintiff' 'Whether security for costs should be ordered against a corporate plaintiff with minimal paid up capital when a natural person is a co-plaintiff']

Ratio Decidendi

No justification in evidence or legal principle to change the consent orders governing $120,000; unusual and inappropriate to order a natural person plaintiff to guarantee costs liability of corporate plaintiff in circumstances pleaded; notice of motion dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; costs ordered in favour of plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion filed 13 August 2004 is dismissed.' 'Defendants to pay the costs of the plaintiffs of the Notice of Motion.' 'Matter stood over for further directions before the Registrar on Thursday 14 October 2004.']