Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 623

Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 623

Although the plaintiffs had not previously given a frank account of their financial position, the evidence did not establish that they had substantial undisclosed resources or that The Lion Partnership, ASMM, the Armstrong children or other supporters could reasonably provide the proposed further security. ASMM's likely income would be needed to meet the plaintiffs' own substantial future legal costs and living expenses, and further security would likely stultify the proceedings. The motions were therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Notices of Motion
Outcome
Defendants' motions dismissed; defendants' costs of the motions to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'stultification of Proceedings' "plaintiffs' Financial Position" 'full and Frank Disclosure']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'stultification of Proceedings' "plaintiffs' Financial Position" 'full and Frank Disclosure']

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 / Interlocutory Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide additional security for the defendants' costs." 'Whether the plaintiffs had failed to give a full and frank account of their financial position on the earlier security application.' 'Whether any order for additional security would stultify the proceedings by preventing the plaintiffs from prosecuting them to finality.' 'Whether funds from The Lion Partnership, ASMM, Mr and Mrs Armstrong, the Armstrong children or other creditors were available to provide further security.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs had not previously given a frank account of their financial position, the evidence did not establish that they had substantial undisclosed resources or that The Lion Partnership, ASMM, the Armstrong children or other supporters could reasonably provide the proposed further security. ASMM's likely income would be needed to meet the plaintiffs' own substantial future legal costs and living expenses, and further security would likely stultify the proceedings. The motions were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motions dismissed; defendants' costs of the motions to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The defendants' notices of motion both filed 19 December 2015 be dismissed." "The costs of both motions be the defendants' costs in the cause." "The costs of the first to ninth defendants' motion be the first to ninth defendants' costs in the cause and the costs of the tenth defendants' motions be the tenth...