Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 206

Ranclose Investments Pty Ltd v Leda Management Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 206

Leave to appeal is granted only in respect of the ground raising the question whether rule 42.21(3) of the UCPR empowers the Court to dismiss proceedings for non-provision of security as against a party not the beneficiary of an order for security for costs. There is no substantive inconsistency between rule 42.21(3) and s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to invalidate the rule. Extension of time to seek leave is refused in relation to the order for payment of future costs to the second respondent, but allowed as to dismissal of proceedings and costs orders by Gibson DCJ.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal/interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal from order regarding security for second respondent refused; extension of time to seek leave to appeal from dismissal and costs order allowed; leave to appeal granted on Ground 2 as regards Leda Holdings; application otherwise dismissed; costs of application...
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'extension of Time' 'dismissal for Failure to Provide Security' 'costs Orders' 'appellate Procedure']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'extension of Time' 'dismissal for Failure to Provide Security' 'costs Orders' 'appellate Procedure']

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

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal/interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the power under rule 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to dismiss proceedings for failure to provide security for costs can be exercised against a defendant who did not seek or obtain an order for security.' 'Whether there is substantive inconsistency between rule 42.21(3) of the UCPR and s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) such that the former is invalid under s 109 of the Constitution (Cth).' 'Whether the discretion to dismiss proceedings miscarried in circumstances where the application for security for costs was brought only by one defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is granted only in respect of the ground raising the question whether rule 42.21(3) of the UCPR empowers the Court to dismiss proceedings for non-provision of security as against a party not the beneficiary of an order for security for costs. There is no substantive inconsistency between rule 42.21(3) and s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to invalidate the rule. Extension of time to seek leave is refused in relation to the order for payment of future costs to the second respondent, but allowed as to dismissal of proceedings and costs orders by Gibson DCJ.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal from order regarding security for second respondent refused; extension of time to seek leave to appeal from dismissal and costs order allowed; leave to appeal granted on Ground 2 as regards Leda Holdings; application otherwise dismissed; costs of application...

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from the order of Abadee DCJ is refused as to the first applicant paying future costs of the second respondent.' "Grant the applicants an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from Gibson DCJ's dismissal and costs orders." 'Grant leave to appeal...