Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 148

Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 148

The Court stayed the proceedings because Mr Pi had not paid costs orders from two earlier Court of Appeal proceedings involving the same parties and substantially the same underlying claims, and the respondents should not be required to incur further costs in a third proceeding before those earlier costs were paid. Although the Court was not persuaded that Mr Pi misstated his address with an intention to deceive, special circumstances justified security for costs: prior unpaid costs orders, an unsuccessful execution attempt, impecuniosity, lack of evidence that security would necessarily stultify the proceedings, absence of public interest, and extremely weak prospects on the leave...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Security for Costs and Stay of Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Proceedings in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Motion granted in part; proceedings stayed pending payment of earlier costs and provision of security for costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Payment of Earlier Costs Orders' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'unpaid Costs Orders' 'special Circumstances Under UCPR R 51.50']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Payment of Earlier Costs Orders' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'unpaid Costs Orders' 'special Circumstances Under UCPR R 51.50']

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 for Security for Costs and Stay of Application for Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Proceedings in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be stayed until Mr Pi paid costs orders from two earlier Court of Appeal proceedings involving the same parties.' 'Whether the current proceedings involved the same or substantially the same cause of action as the earlier discontinued judicial review proceedings for the purposes of UCPR r 12.4.' 'Whether s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) provided power to stay the proceedings pending payment of earlier costs.' 'Whether Mr Pi misstated his address with an intention to deceive so as to justify security for costs under UCPR r 42.21(1)(b).' 'Whether special circumstances existed under UCPR r 51.50 to order security for costs of the application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the amount of security sought was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court stayed the proceedings because Mr Pi had not paid costs orders from two earlier Court of Appeal proceedings involving the same parties and substantially the same underlying claims, and the respondents should not be required to incur further costs in a third proceeding before those earlier costs were paid. Although the Court was not persuaded that Mr Pi misstated his address with an intention to deceive, special circumstances justified security for costs: prior unpaid costs orders, an unsuccessful execution attempt, impecuniosity, lack of evidence that security would necessarily stultify the proceedings, absence of public interest, and extremely weak prospects on the leave...

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; proceedings stayed pending payment of earlier costs and provision of security for costs.

Orders

  • ["Stay these proceedings until the applicant (Mr Pi) has paid to the respondents (Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao) the costs of $1,200 ordered on 7 December 2015 in proceedings 2015/336639 and the costs of the summons in proceedings 2016/41912 ordered on 2 March 2016, as assessed or agreed, and provided security for the...