Steel Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Decmil Australia Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1645

Steel Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Decmil Australia Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1645

Further security was ordered because the Court was satisfied that its jurisdiction was enlivened, Decmil's cross-claim was in substance defensive and the non-defensive matters did not materially affect the costs for which security was sought, delay caused no identified prejudice or stultification, Decmil's explanation for the earlier cost underestimate was accepted, and SBS did not provide a sufficient basis to reject Decmil's estimate of further joint expert costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Further Security for Costs in Equity Technology and Construction List Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed on 8 October 2019 Seeking Further Security for Costs for Tranche 1
Outcome
Plaintiff to provide further security for costs in the amount sought.
Legal Topics
['further Security for Costs' 'plaintiff in Liquidation' 'litigation Funding' 'defensive Cross Claim' 'delay in Bringing Security Application' 'expert Evidence Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'security for Costs' 'technology and Construction'] ['further Security for Costs' 'plaintiff in Liquidation' 'litigation Funding' 'defensive Cross Claim' 'delay in Bringing Security Application' 'expert Evidence 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 Further Security for Costs in Equity Technology and Construction List Proceedings / Notice of Motion Filed on 8 October 2019 Seeking Further Security for Costs for Tranche 1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether SBS should provide further security for Decmil's costs of Tranche 1." "Whether Decmil's cross-claim was in substance defensive or included non-defensive claims such that Decmil should be seen as a plaintiff." 'Whether delay in bringing the application should weigh against ordering further security.' 'Whether Decmil adequately explained its 2018 underestimate of costs for Tranche 1.' "Whether Decmil's estimate of further costs associated with joint expert evidence was excessive."]

Ratio Decidendi

Further security was ordered because the Court was satisfied that its jurisdiction was enlivened, Decmil's cross-claim was in substance defensive and the non-defensive matters did not materially affect the costs for which security was sought, delay caused no identified prejudice or stultification, Decmil's explanation for the earlier cost underestimate was accepted, and SBS did not provide a sufficient basis to reject Decmil's estimate of further joint expert costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff to provide further security for costs in the amount sought.

Orders

  • ['Security for costs sought by Decmil is to be ordered.' 'The parties are directed to bring in short minutes to give effect to the reasons.']