Liu v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1256

Liu v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1256

The plaintiff failed to comply with the $300,000 security for costs order, did not challenge the order, did not seek an extension or take steps to remedy the default, was on notice of the dismissal application, failed to appear or provide evidence, and his conduct supported inferences that he had no intention of providing security and lacked the financial ability to fund the proceedings. Given the significant elapsed period and prejudice to the defendant if the proceedings continued, the discretion under r 42.21(3) was exercised to dismiss the proceedings with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings; Interlocutory Application for Dismissal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs / Defendant's Notice of Motion Under R 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Following Plaintiff's Non Compliance With an Order to Provide Security for Costs
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed pursuant to rule 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, with costs ordered against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'costs Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'costs Orders']

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

Defamation Proceedings; Interlocutory Application for Dismissal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs / Defendant's Notice of Motion Under R 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Following Plaintiff's Non Compliance With an Order to Provide Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be dismissed pursuant to r 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 because the plaintiff failed to lodge security for costs of $300,000.' "Whether the circumstances, including the plaintiff's notice of the dismissal application, failure to respond, apparent inability to fund the proceedings, and prejudice to the defendant, justified dismissal with costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to comply with the $300,000 security for costs order, did not challenge the order, did not seek an extension or take steps to remedy the default, was on notice of the dismissal application, failed to appear or provide evidence, and his conduct supported inferences that he had no intention of providing security and lacked the financial ability to fund the proceedings. Given the significant elapsed period and prejudice to the defendant if the proceedings continued, the discretion under r 42.21(3) was exercised to dismiss the proceedings with costs.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed pursuant to rule 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, with costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings herein be dismissed pursuant to rule 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' "That the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings."]