TM Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd v President Bloodstock Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1607

TM Thoroughbreds Pty Ltd v President Bloodstock Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1607

The cross-claim was for the most part defensive because the central proposition was that the defendant/cross-claimant was entitled to set off alleged unpaid loan amounts, unpaid purchase prices, unpaid sale proceeds and overcharged amounts against the plaintiffs' claim, and those matters had analogues in the defence. Although the cross-claim included some additional matters, including a loss of opportunity claim, it was essentially a defence to the plaintiffs' claim, so security against the cross-claimant was refused. Given the defendant's evidence of estimated future costs and applying a broad brush approach while taking account of the $100,000 security already provided, the plaintiffs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Applications in Equity Commercial List Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Notices of Motion Filed on 16 and 20 August 2019 After Plaintiffs and Defendant/cross Claimant Had Served Evidence in Chief
Outcome
Cross-defendants' application for security dismissed. Plaintiffs ordered to provide further security for the defendant's costs of $250,000.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'cross Claim Primarily Defensive in Nature' 'further Security for Costs' 'discretion as to Security' 'quantum of Security']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'cross Claim Primarily Defensive in Nature' 'further Security for Costs' 'discretion as to Security' 'quantum of Security']

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

Security for Costs Applications in Equity Commercial List Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Notices of Motion Filed on 16 and 20 August 2019 After Plaintiffs and Defendant/cross Claimant Had Served Evidence in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-defendants should be denied security on the basis that the cross-claim is essentially defensive in nature.' "The quantum of any security to be ordered for the defendant's costs of the plaintiffs' claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

The cross-claim was for the most part defensive because the central proposition was that the defendant/cross-claimant was entitled to set off alleged unpaid loan amounts, unpaid purchase prices, unpaid sale proceeds and overcharged amounts against the plaintiffs' claim, and those matters had analogues in the defence. Although the cross-claim included some additional matters, including a loss of opportunity claim, it was essentially a defence to the plaintiffs' claim, so security against the cross-claimant was refused. Given the defendant's evidence of estimated future costs and applying a broad brush approach while taking account of the $100,000 security already provided, the plaintiffs...

Court Disposition

Cross-defendants' application for security dismissed. Plaintiffs ordered to provide further security for the defendant's costs of $250,000.

Orders

  • ['The cross-claimant is not required to provide security for the cross-claim.' "The plaintiffs are to provide further security for the defendant's costs in the sum of $250,000." 'The further security is to be paid at the time when evidence on the cross-claim is complete.' "The cross-defendants should pay the...