Ingot & Ors v Macquarie & Ors [No 5] [2006] NSWSC 255

Ingot & Ors v Macquarie & Ors [No 5] [2006] NSWSC 255

Further security was refused because the fourth and sixth plaintiffs were likely to be able to meet relevant adverse costs orders, and their undertakings to pay costs orders against specified impecunious plaintiffs gave adequate and fair protection to the Macquarie parties. The overseas incorporation of some plaintiffs did not justify further security where there was a reciprocal enforcement mechanism and no evidentiary basis for fixing enforcement costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Filed in Court on 20 March 2006
Outcome
The first, second and third defendants' notice of motion for further security for costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'undertakings to the Court' 'overseas Plaintiffs' 'reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments' 'confidentiality of Financial Records']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'undertakings to the Court' 'overseas Plaintiffs' 'reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments' 'confidentiality of Financial Records']

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 Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Filed in Court on 20 March 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application was a top up application or a fresh application for further security for costs.' 'Whether the financial positions of the fourth and sixth plaintiffs made their undertakings sufficient protection for the Macquarie parties.' 'Whether the movement of monies between the sixth plaintiff and associated companies affected its ability to meet costs orders.' 'Whether further security should be ordered because the second, fourth and fifth plaintiffs were incorporated overseas.' 'If further security were ordered, what amount and recoverable-costs percentage would be appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Further security was refused because the fourth and sixth plaintiffs were likely to be able to meet relevant adverse costs orders, and their undertakings to pay costs orders against specified impecunious plaintiffs gave adequate and fair protection to the Macquarie parties. The overseas incorporation of some plaintiffs did not justify further security where there was a reciprocal enforcement mechanism and no evidentiary basis for fixing enforcement costs.

Court Disposition

The first, second and third defendants' notice of motion for further security for costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Court noted that the fourth plaintiff by its senior counsel gave the undertaking set out in para [18] of the reasons.' 'The Court noted that the sixth plaintiff by its senior counsel gave the undertaking set out in para [19] of the reasons.' "The first, second and third defendants' notice of motion filed in...