Jazabas Pty Ltd & 2 Ors v Haddad & 2 Ors [2006] NSWSC 880

Jazabas Pty Ltd & 2 Ors v Haddad & 2 Ors [2006] NSWSC 880

The first and second defendants were jointly represented and the earlier judgment left the choice between a joint order and separate orders to them; the plaintiffs identified no benefit in separate orders, and if proceedings were abandoned against one of those defendants the remaining defendant would be entitled to the whole sum. The circumstances justifying security for costs also supported requiring the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred in pursuing the security applications before further costs were incurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Applications / Interlocutory Judgment on Appropriate Orders for Security for Costs Applications and Costs
Outcome
A joint order was made in favour of the first and second defendants for security for costs in the sum of $100,000, and costs orders were made in favour of each defendant.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'joint Representation']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'joint Representation']

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

Security for Costs Applications / Interlocutory Judgment on Appropriate Orders for Security for Costs Applications and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second defendants, who were jointly represented, should receive a joint security for costs order of $100,000 or separate orders of $50,000 each.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should pay the costs of the security for costs applications forthwith.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second defendants were jointly represented and the earlier judgment left the choice between a joint order and separate orders to them; the plaintiffs identified no benefit in separate orders, and if proceedings were abandoned against one of those defendants the remaining defendant would be entitled to the whole sum. The circumstances justifying security for costs also supported requiring the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred in pursuing the security applications before further costs were incurred.

Court Disposition

A joint order was made in favour of the first and second defendants for security for costs in the sum of $100,000, and costs orders were made in favour of each defendant.

Orders

  • ['A joint order in favour of the first and second defendants for security for costs in the sum of $100,000.' 'The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of each security for costs application forthwith.']