Large v Djamirze [2019] NSWSC 716

Large v Djamirze [2019] NSWSC 716

Further security for costs is refused because the $60,000 security already provided exceeds the likely costs of enforcing any order in California or British Columbia, the application was brought late after the matter was set down for hearing, and the plaintiffs have good prospects of success.

Parties
First Plaintiff/respondent: Corey Large; Second Plaintiff/respondent: 308 Enterprises Inc; Third Plaintiff/respondent: ILF Productions Inc; Fourth Plaintiff/respondent: ILF AU Films Pty Ltd; Fifth Plaintiff/respondent: ILF AU Productions Pty Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Alexander Djamirze
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (security for Costs) / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Defendant's Notice of Motion filed 12 April 2019 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs, Foreign Enforcement of Judgments, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Civil Procedure Equity Security for Costs Costs Foreign Enforcement of Judgments Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corey Large

First Plaintiff/respondent

308 Enterprises Inc

Second Plaintiff/respondent

ILF Productions Inc

Third Plaintiff/respondent

ILF AU Films Pty Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff/respondent

ILF AU Productions Pty Ltd

Fifth Plaintiff/respondent

Alexander Djamirze

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (security for Costs) / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against plaintiffs where security has already been provided
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum for security for costs where plaintiffs are outside jurisdiction
  3. 3 Effect of timing of application for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Further security for costs is refused because the $60,000 security already provided exceeds the likely costs of enforcing any order in California or British Columbia, the application was brought late after the matter was set down for hearing, and the plaintiffs have good prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Defendant's Notice of Motion filed 12 April 2019 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Defendant's Notice of Motion for further security for costs is dismissed.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the Notice of Motion.