Regional Architects Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 106

Regional Architects Pty Ltd v Coffs Harbour City Council (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 106

Credible testimony indicated there was reason to believe Regional Architects would be unable to pay the Council's costs if ordered, and in the exercise of discretion under s 1335 Corporations Act, security for costs is fair and reasonable given repeated evidentiary deficiencies and the lack of rectification of previously identified defects.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Civil Appeal / Notice of Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against applicant; costs of Notice of Motion to respondent.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporations Act S 1335' 'land and Environment Court Rules R 3.7' 'appeal of Development Application Refusal']
['costs' 'corporations' 'planning and Environment'] ['security for Costs' 'corporations Act S 1335' 'land and Environment Court Rules R 3.7' 'appeal of Development Application Refusal']

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

Class 1 Civil Appeal / Notice of Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order for security for costs should be made against a corporate applicant under s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act' "Whether credible testimony exists that the corporation will be unable to pay respondent's costs if ordered" 'Whether exercise of discretion is appropriate under the Land and Environment Court Rules r 3.7']

Ratio Decidendi

Credible testimony indicated there was reason to believe Regional Architects would be unable to pay the Council's costs if ordered, and in the exercise of discretion under s 1335 Corporations Act, security for costs is fair and reasonable given repeated evidentiary deficiencies and the lack of rectification of previously identified defects.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against applicant; costs of Notice of Motion to respondent.

Orders

  • ['Applicant to provide security for costs in sum of $240,000 within 21 days of order, paid into Court or by irrevocable bank guarantee.' 'Proceedings stayed until further order in event of non-compliance with security order.' "Applicant to pay respondent's costs of Notice of Motion." 'Exhibits returned; parties to...