SSABR Pty Ltd v AMA Group Ltd [2024] NSWCA 104

SSABR Pty Ltd v AMA Group Ltd [2024] NSWCA 104

Because the appellants accepted that the preconditions for s 1335 were engaged and did not resist an order as a matter of discretion, security for costs was appropriate. Quantum was fixed by a broad brush approach: the Court adopted the top of the appellants' accepted range based on Ms Drew's costs assessor evidence, added a cautious allowance for notice of contention costs and a limited allowance for past costs, rejected security for the security motion itself, and declined to provide a complete indemnity. The resulting sufficient security was $80,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Security for Costs in Appeal / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling Before Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in the sum of $80,000; matter listed for directions; stay declined at this stage.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'appeal' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 1335' 'quantum of Security' 'notice of Contention' 'past Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['security for Costs' 'appeal' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 1335' 'quantum of Security' 'notice of Contention' 'past Costs']

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 in Appeal / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling Before Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against the corporate appellants under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335.' 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered where the parties disputed only quantum.' "Whether security should include costs likely to be incurred in advancing the respondents' notice of contention." 'Whether security should include past costs, including costs of the security for costs motion.' "Whether the solicitor's security estimate or the professional costs assessor's estimate should be preferred."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellants accepted that the preconditions for s 1335 were engaged and did not resist an order as a matter of discretion, security for costs was appropriate. Quantum was fixed by a broad brush approach: the Court adopted the top of the appellants' accepted range based on Ms Drew's costs assessor evidence, added a cautious allowance for notice of contention costs and a limited allowance for past costs, rejected security for the security motion itself, and declined to provide a complete indemnity. The resulting sufficient security was $80,000.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in the sum of $80,000; matter listed for directions; stay declined at this stage.

Orders

  • ["By 4pm on 14 May 2024, the appellants provide security for the respondents' costs of these appeal proceedings pursuant to section 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), in the sum of $80,000, by payment of that sum into court or by provision of security in that amount in a form acceptable to the Registrar of the...