Tripple Take Pty Limited v Clark Rubber Franchising Pty Limited; Robert Lloyd Brooks v Clark Rubber Franchising Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 1169

Tripple Take Pty Limited v Clark Rubber Franchising Pty Limited; Robert Lloyd Brooks v Clark Rubber Franchising Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 1169

The motion for security for costs was dismissed because Clark Rubber provided no satisfactory explanation for seeking security only after substantial interlocutory steps, discovery, evidence, expenditure and the setting down of the proceedings for hearing. The plaintiffs had incurred very substantial costs in circumstances where Tripple Take's financial position could have been ascertained earlier, and the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) case management principles supported refusing a late application that would be unfair and contrary to the just, quick and cheap resolution of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Motion for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'delay in Application' 'case Management' 'cross Vesting']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Litigation'] ['security for Costs' 'delay in Application' 'case Management' 'cross Vesting']

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 / Interlocutory Application Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's application for security for costs should be dismissed because of delay." 'Whether the plaintiffs would suffer unfairness or prejudice if security were ordered after substantial costs had been incurred and the proceedings set down for hearing.' 'Whether the overriding purpose and case management provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) supported refusal of security.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for security for costs was dismissed because Clark Rubber provided no satisfactory explanation for seeking security only after substantial interlocutory steps, discovery, evidence, expenditure and the setting down of the proceedings for hearing. The plaintiffs had incurred very substantial costs in circumstances where Tripple Take's financial position could have been ascertained earlier, and the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) case management principles supported refusing a late application that would be unfair and contrary to the just, quick and cheap resolution of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Motion for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for security for costs is dismissed.' "The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for security for costs."]