Paul Douglas Williams & Anor v Abbott Australasia Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWSC 425

Paul Douglas Williams & Anor v Abbott Australasia Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWSC 425

The motion was dismissed because the existing security for costs orders had formed part of an interrelated resolution of contested interlocutory applications, the defendants had proceeded in reliance on that regime and incurred substantial preparation expense, the proposed personal and corporate guarantees were not shown to provide adequate protection, and the late application was supported by incomplete and opaque evidence. The applicants failed to establish with requisite clarity that there was a basis to vary the security regime or that the defendants would suffer no prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Vary Security for Costs Orders / Interlocutory Application Before Final Hearing in the Equity Division, Commercial List
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders' 'personal Guarantee as Security' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'overriding Objective']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'commercial Litigation'] ['security for Costs' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders' 'personal Guarantee as Security' 'prejudice to Defendants' 'overriding Objective']

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

Notice of Motion to Vary Security for Costs Orders / Interlocutory Application Before Final Hearing in the Equity Division, Commercial List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether existing orders requiring the second plaintiff to provide $380,000 security for the defendants' costs should be varied by returning or vacating the cash security and substituting a personal guarantee from the first plaintiff." "Whether the plaintiffs' asserted new evidence justified revisiting the security for costs regime shortly before final hearing." 'Whether the proposed personal guarantees would adequately protect the defendants and whether the defendants would suffer prejudice if the orders were varied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the existing security for costs orders had formed part of an interrelated resolution of contested interlocutory applications, the defendants had proceeded in reliance on that regime and incurred substantial preparation expense, the proposed personal and corporate guarantees were not shown to provide adequate protection, and the late application was supported by incomplete and opaque evidence. The applicants failed to establish with requisite clarity that there was a basis to vary the security regime or that the defendants would suffer no prejudice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion is dismissed.' "The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the motion."]