ABB Service v Pyrmont Light Rail [2006] NSWSC 187

ABB Service v Pyrmont Light Rail [2006] NSWSC 187

Security should not operate only from the filing of the summons because PLRC had invited delay while proposing to provide information or security, and it would be unjust to let PLRC rely on the later filing date. However, the initial demand was based only on a newspaper report, and a substantial basis for the application was not provided until Mr Potter's draft report. By 22 August 2005 PLRC had sufficient information to recognise that the jurisdictional foundation for security was likely to exist, so security should cover ABB's costs from that date. The security should extend to ABB's cross-claim against PLRC because it was in substance defensive, and also to ABB's claim against...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Relation to an Arbitration / Ex Tempore Judgment on Disputed Terms After the Parties Agreed That Security Should Be Given
Outcome
Security for costs ordered on the terms indicated; arbitration stayed until security is provided; costs of the application made ABB's costs in the arbitration.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'security for Costs in Arbitration' 'costs of Cross Claims' 'stay of Arbitration Pending Provision of Security' 'commercial Arbitration Act S 47' 'corporations Act 2001 S 1335']
['costs' 'arbitration' 'corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'security for Costs in Arbitration' 'costs of Cross Claims' 'stay of Arbitration Pending Provision of Security' 'commercial Arbitration Act S 47' 'corporations Act 2001 S 1335']

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 Relation to an Arbitration / Ex Tempore Judgment on Disputed Terms After the Parties Agreed That Security Should Be Given

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['From what date security for costs should operate.' 'Whether security for costs should extend to costs incurred by ABB in relation to its cross-claims against PLRC and Microelectronic.' 'What order should be made for the costs of the Supreme Court proceedings.' 'What mechanism should apply to any application by ABB for further or top-up security.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security should not operate only from the filing of the summons because PLRC had invited delay while proposing to provide information or security, and it would be unjust to let PLRC rely on the later filing date. However, the initial demand was based only on a newspaper report, and a substantial basis for the application was not provided until Mr Potter's draft report. By 22 August 2005 PLRC had sufficient information to recognise that the jurisdictional foundation for security was likely to exist, so security should cover ABB's costs from that date. The security should extend to ABB's cross-claim against PLRC because it was in substance defensive, and also to ABB's claim against...

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered on the terms indicated; arbitration stayed until security is provided; costs of the application made ABB's costs in the arbitration.

Orders

  • ['Orders made in accordance with paragraph 1 (as amended) of the short minutes of order initialled by the judge and dated 17 March 2006.' 'The agreement of the parties as set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 (each as amended) of the short minutes of order was noted.' 'The arbitration between the defendant as claimant...