Coolangatta Property Pty Ltd v Emily Dyason [2011] NSWSC 929

Coolangatta Property Pty Ltd v Emily Dyason [2011] NSWSC 929

The application for security for costs failed because the defendant did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish reason to believe that the corporate plaintiff may be unable to meet an adverse costs order; the jurisdiction under UCPR r 42.21(1)(d) was therefore not enlivened. The Court also identified strong discretionary reasons against security, including the modest amount in dispute, the late bringing of the application, and the absence of evidence as to the quantum of likely defence costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs in Proceedings for Commission Under a Selling Agency Agreement / Notice of Motion Filed 31 May 2011 Heard Before Trial
Outcome
Defendant's application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporate Impecuniosity' 'discretionary Considerations' 'delay' 'quantum of Security']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['security for Costs' 'corporate Impecuniosity' 'discretionary Considerations' 'delay' 'quantum of Security']

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

Motion for Security for Costs in Proceedings for Commission Under a Selling Agency Agreement / Notice of Motion Filed 31 May 2011 Heard Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was reason to believe that the plaintiff, being a corporation, may be unable to meet an adverse costs order if unsuccessful.' 'Whether discretionary considerations favoured ordering security for costs.' 'Whether the absence of evidence as to the likely costs to be incurred precluded an order for security.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs failed because the defendant did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish reason to believe that the corporate plaintiff may be unable to meet an adverse costs order; the jurisdiction under UCPR r 42.21(1)(d) was therefore not enlivened. The Court also identified strong discretionary reasons against security, including the modest amount in dispute, the late bringing of the application, and the absence of evidence as to the quantum of likely defence costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion is dismissed with costs.']