Cornelius v Global Medical Solutions Australia Pty Ltd; Farag v Global Medical Solutions Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 65

Cornelius v Global Medical Solutions Australia Pty Ltd; Farag v Global Medical Solutions Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 65

The correct threshold is whether there is 'reason to believe' the plaintiff will not be able to meet an adverse costs order, and this was not met on the evidence; thus, there was no power to order security for costs, and the applications for leave to appeal were properly dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Order Security for Costs
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporations Security for Costs' 'costs (civil Procedure)' 'appellate Review of Interlocutory Decisions']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'corporations Security for Costs' 'costs (civil Procedure)' 'appellate Review of Interlocutory Decisions']

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 Leave to Appeal / Determination of Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Order Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the threshold to order security for costs was met under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.21(1)(d) or Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335(1)' "Correct test for satisfying the threshold – 'reason to believe' or risk?" 'Burden of proof in security for costs applications' 'Principles for appellate review of refusal to order security for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The correct threshold is whether there is 'reason to believe' the plaintiff will not be able to meet an adverse costs order, and this was not met on the evidence; thus, there was no power to order security for costs, and the applications for leave to appeal were properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The two applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.']