Cordukes Limited v DS Parklane Development Pty Limited [2001] NSWSC 480

Cordukes Limited v DS Parklane Development Pty Limited [2001] NSWSC 480

Security for costs was refused because, although Cordukes had experienced financial difficulties, Parklane's evidence did not justify making the order when weighed against the expert concession that Cordukes' future ability to pay depended on profitability and was not clear-cut, the unexplained delay in bringing the application, the substantial overlap and common factual matrix between the summons and cross-claim, and evidence that Cordukes' financial position had improved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Construction Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by Defendant/applicant Filed 26 March 2001
Outcome
Application refused; notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecunious Corporate Plaintiff' 'delay in Bringing Application' 'overlap Between Claim and Cross Claim' 'construction Contract Dispute']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'construction Law' 'contract Law'] ['security for Costs' 'impecunious Corporate Plaintiff' 'delay in Bringing Application' 'overlap Between Claim and Cross Claim' 'construction Contract Dispute']

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 Security for Costs in Construction Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by Defendant/applicant Filed 26 March 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was credible testimony giving reason to believe Cordukes Limited would be unable to pay Parklane's costs if Parklane succeeded in its defence." "Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs having regard to delay, overlapping issues between the summons and cross-claim, Parklane's undertaking not to prosecute its cross-claim until security was provided, and Cordukes' present financial position."]

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused because, although Cordukes had experienced financial difficulties, Parklane's evidence did not justify making the order when weighed against the expert concession that Cordukes' future ability to pay depended on profitability and was not clear-cut, the unexplained delay in bringing the application, the substantial overlap and common factual matrix between the summons and cross-claim, and evidence that Cordukes' financial position had improved.

Court Disposition

Application refused; notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.']