Tyneside Property Management Pty Limited v Hammersmith Management Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 404

Tyneside Property Management Pty Limited v Hammersmith Management Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 404

The appellants conceded they would be unable to pay the respondents' costs if the appeal failed. Tyneside and Namlot were impecunious and the evidence did not establish that security would stultify their appeals, because possible funding sources, including Ms Florence and the appellants' solicitors, were not shown to be unavailable. As to Mr Haggis, special circumstances existed because his own appeal appeared to have little practical value given his impecuniosity, the grounds did not clearly identify issues specific to him, and an unsuccessful appeal would cause substantial irrecoverable costs to the respondents. Security of $80,000 was appropriate on the basis that the appeal should be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs of an Appeal / Respondents' Motion in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application granted; appellants ordered to provide security for costs and proceedings stayed until security is provided.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'costs of Appeal' 'corporate Appellant Impecuniosity' 'special Circumstances' 'stay of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'costs of Appeal' 'corporate Appellant Impecuniosity' 'special Circumstances' 'stay of Proceedings']

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 of an Appeal / Respondents' Motion in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Tyneside Property Management Pty Limited and Namlot Nominees Pty Limited should be ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs of the appeal under s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)." "Whether Roy Frederick Haggis should be ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs of the appeal under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.50." 'Whether an order for security would stultify the appeal.' 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants conceded they would be unable to pay the respondents' costs if the appeal failed. Tyneside and Namlot were impecunious and the evidence did not establish that security would stultify their appeals, because possible funding sources, including Ms Florence and the appellants' solicitors, were not shown to be unavailable. As to Mr Haggis, special circumstances existed because his own appeal appeared to have little practical value given his impecuniosity, the grounds did not clearly identify issues specific to him, and an unsuccessful appeal would cause substantial irrecoverable costs to the respondents. Security of $80,000 was appropriate on the basis that the appeal should be...

Court Disposition

Application granted; appellants ordered to provide security for costs and proceedings stayed until security is provided.

Orders

  • ['Order the appellants to furnish by 16 December 2013 security for the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the appeal in the amount of $80,000.' 'In the absence of agreement between the parties, such security to be provided by way of bank guarantee.' 'Stay the proceedings until security in accordance with...