Globus Investments v William [2016] NSWSC 613

Globus Investments v William [2016] NSWSC 613

The defendants made out a case for security for costs because there was reason to believe the plaintiff company could not promptly meet an adverse costs order, the plaintiff had no obvious assets or income, no costs undertaking was offered by persons standing behind it, the plaintiff's impecuniosity was not shown to be caused by the defendants' alleged wrongdoing, and the defendants' delay was understandable after the plaintiff greatly enlarged the claim and did not disentitle them to relief. Although the plaintiff's claim was bona fide and had reasonable prospects, the balance of relevant factors justified security in two tranches and the defendants were entitled to costs because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Commercial Proceedings / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the motion.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'costs of Motion' 'plaintiff Company Impecuniosity' 'delay in Applying for Security' 'assessment of Security']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations' 'commercial Litigation'] ['security for Costs' 'costs of Motion' 'plaintiff Company Impecuniosity' 'delay in Applying for Security' 'assessment 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

Application for Security for Costs in Commercial Proceedings / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was reason to believe that the plaintiff company would be unable to meet an adverse costs order if the defendants succeeded.' "Whether the defendants' delay in seeking security should disentitle them to an order for security for costs." "Whether the plaintiff's claim was bona fide and had reasonable prospects of success." 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered.' "Whether the plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants made out a case for security for costs because there was reason to believe the plaintiff company could not promptly meet an adverse costs order, the plaintiff had no obvious assets or income, no costs undertaking was offered by persons standing behind it, the plaintiff's impecuniosity was not shown to be caused by the defendants' alleged wrongdoing, and the defendants' delay was understandable after the plaintiff greatly enlarged the claim and did not disentitle them to relief. Although the plaintiff's claim was bona fide and had reasonable prospects, the balance of relevant factors justified security in two tranches and the defendants were entitled to costs because the...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the motion.

Orders

  • ['Counsel are directed to bring in Short Minutes of Order providing for security in the sum of $93,755 within 14 days.' 'Counsel are directed to bring in Short Minutes of Order providing for a second tranche of security, if the matter does not settle within 14 days of the mediation, in the sum of $128,000.' "The...