Flip Out Thornton Pty Ltd v Flip Out - Trampoline Arena Franchises Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1094

Flip Out Thornton Pty Ltd v Flip Out - Trampoline Arena Franchises Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1094

Further security for costs should be ordered because the proceedings were funded from the outset, plaintiffs are unable to meet an adverse costs order, the funding was not properly disclosed previously, and the absence of funding now does not outweigh the justice in protecting the defendants with security for costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Security for Costs Application
Outcome
Further security for costs ordered
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'litigation Funding' 'costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'franchise Disputes']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'litigation Funding' 'costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'franchise Disputes']

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

Equity Commercial List / Security for Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether further security for costs should be provided by plaintiffs' 'Whether litigation funding arrangement and its termination affect security for costs order' 'Whether ordering security would stultify the proceedings' "Attribution of plaintiffs' impecuniosity to defendants' conduct"]

Ratio Decidendi

Further security for costs should be ordered because the proceedings were funded from the outset, plaintiffs are unable to meet an adverse costs order, the funding was not properly disclosed previously, and the absence of funding now does not outweigh the justice in protecting the defendants with security for costs.

Court Disposition

Further security for costs ordered

Orders

  • ['Plaintiffs to provide further security for costs in the sums sought by the Franchisor Defendants ($520,520) and Recruitment Defendants ($420,000).' 'Parties to bring in short minutes to give effect to these reasons.']