In the matter of Apollo Property Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1497

In the matter of Apollo Property Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1497

Security for costs was not warranted because the first plaintiff had concurrently disclosed his true residential address by affidavit, excluding an inference that the address misstatement in the originating process was intended to mislead, and because security against the second plaintiff was inappropriate having regard to the modest likely costs, the joint and several costs exposure of a natural person plaintiff within the jurisdiction, insufficient evidence that the company could not meet a $5000 costs order, and delay in seeking security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Ex Tempore Decision on Interlocutory Process
Outcome
Claim for relief in paragraph 2 of the interlocutory process dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' "misstatement of Plaintiff's Address" 'corporate Plaintiff' 'natural Person Plaintiff Within the Jurisdiction' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' "misstatement of Plaintiff's Address" 'corporate Plaintiff' 'natural Person Plaintiff Within the Jurisdiction' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim']

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

Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Ex Tempore Decision on Interlocutory Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the misstatement of the first plaintiff's address in the originating process was made with intention to mislead." 'Whether security for costs should be ordered against the first plaintiff.' 'Whether security for costs should be ordered against the second plaintiff, a corporate plaintiff, in respect of an application for leave to amend the statement of claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was not warranted because the first plaintiff had concurrently disclosed his true residential address by affidavit, excluding an inference that the address misstatement in the originating process was intended to mislead, and because security against the second plaintiff was inappropriate having regard to the modest likely costs, the joint and several costs exposure of a natural person plaintiff within the jurisdiction, insufficient evidence that the company could not meet a $5000 costs order, and delay in seeking security.

Court Disposition

Claim for relief in paragraph 2 of the interlocutory process dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The claim for relief in paragraph 2 of the interlocutory process is dismissed.' 'Costs assessed in the sum of $5,500 inclusive of GST.']