In the matter of Norwest Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1398

In the matter of Norwest Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1398

No costs order was appropriate because the security for costs application was compromised before determination on the merits, neither side established that the other acted unreasonably, the Court could not be confident which side would have succeeded on the application, and it was not unreasonable for the Defendants to refuse the Plaintiffs' short-lived Calderbank offer given the incomplete evidence of Mr Hong's financial capacity and the absence of Plaintiffs' evidence on the security for costs application at that time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List; Costs of Interlocutory Security for Costs Application / After the Defendants' Security for Costs Application Was Compromised; Determination of Costs of That Application
Outcome
No order as to costs of the Defendants' interlocutory process seeking security for costs or the hearing as to costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'party/party Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'party/party Costs' 'costs in the Cause' 'calderbank Offers' 'indemnity 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

Equity Corporations List; Costs of Interlocutory Security for Costs Application / After the Defendants' Security for Costs Application Was Compromised; Determination of Costs of That Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made where a security for costs application was compromised before a hearing on the merits.' 'Whether the Plaintiffs should receive ordinary costs up to 8 August 2017 and indemnity costs thereafter because the Defendants did not accept a Calderbank offer.' 'Whether the Defendants should receive costs in the cause or costs of the security for costs application.']

Ratio Decidendi

No costs order was appropriate because the security for costs application was compromised before determination on the merits, neither side established that the other acted unreasonably, the Court could not be confident which side would have succeeded on the application, and it was not unreasonable for the Defendants to refuse the Plaintiffs' short-lived Calderbank offer given the incomplete evidence of Mr Hong's financial capacity and the absence of Plaintiffs' evidence on the security for costs application at that time.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the Defendants' interlocutory process seeking security for costs or the hearing as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The Court orders that there be no order for costs in respect of the Defendants' Interlocutory Process seeking security for costs filed on 1 August 2017 or of or incidental to the hearing as to costs on 3 September 2017."]