PA Putney Finance Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Aalders & Anor [2020] NSWSC 1632

PA Putney Finance Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Aalders & Anor [2020] NSWSC 1632

The motion was dismissed because the defendants/applicants failed to satisfy the threshold requirement in UCPR r 42.21(d) of showing reason to believe that the corporate plaintiffs would be unable to pay an adverse costs order. The evidence showed combined assets of $369,267.06 for the first and second plaintiffs, estimated total defence costs of $305,000, and existing security of $100,000, leaving an unsecured balance of $205,000 that the Court considered amply covered by the plaintiffs' combined asset surplus.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Motion in Equity Proceedings Concerning Enforcement of a Settlement / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed. Applicants/defendants ordered to pay the respondents/plaintiffs' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' "corporate Plaintiffs' Ability to Pay Costs" 'further Security for Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 42.21(d)' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth), S 1335']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' "corporate Plaintiffs' Ability to Pay Costs" 'further Security for Costs' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 42.21(d)' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth), 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

Security for Costs Motion in Equity Proceedings Concerning Enforcement of a Settlement / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants/applicants established reason to believe that the corporate plaintiffs would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so." 'Whether further security for costs should be ordered after two previous security for costs applications and existing security of $100,000.' 'What effect, if any, changed circumstances since the previous security order had on the amount of further security.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the defendants/applicants failed to satisfy the threshold requirement in UCPR r 42.21(d) of showing reason to believe that the corporate plaintiffs would be unable to pay an adverse costs order. The evidence showed combined assets of $369,267.06 for the first and second plaintiffs, estimated total defence costs of $305,000, and existing security of $100,000, leaving an unsecured balance of $205,000 that the Court considered amply covered by the plaintiffs' combined asset surplus.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed. Applicants/defendants ordered to pay the respondents/plaintiffs' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the motion dated 2 October 2020.' "Order that the applicants/defendants pay the respondents/plaintiffs' costs of this motion."]