Precise Training Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2020] NSWSC 1202

Precise Training Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2020] NSWSC 1202

The plaintiffs accepted there was reason to believe they may be unable to pay any adverse costs order. While the proceedings had defensive elements, that factor alone did not preclude exercise of the court’s discretion to order security. Delay in filing the application was found not to have caused prejudice. Therefore, security was ordered for future costs only, limited to $199,900, payable in two tranches, to balance fairness given the unexplained delay.

Parties
First Plaintiff/first Respondent: Precise Training Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff/second Respondent: The Ville Holdings Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff/third Respondent: AVS Group Australia Pty Ltd; Fourth Plaintiff/fourth Respondent: Slim Enterprise Pty Ltd; Fifth Plaintiff/fifth Respondent: Kings Head Tavern South Pty Ltd; Sixth Plaintiff: Superior Family Investments Pty Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory (before Trial)
Outcome
Security for costs granted in the sum of $199,900 for future costs, payable in two tranches; proceedings stayed if security not provided; plaintiffs to pay defendant's costs of notice of motion; liberty to apply as to the form of security.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Delay in Application, Defensive Proceedings, Discretionary Considerations in Security for Costs Applications
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Delay in Application Defensive Proceedings Discretionary Considerations in Security for Costs Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Precise Training Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff/first Respondent

The Ville Holdings Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff/second Respondent

AVS Group Australia Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff/third Respondent

Slim Enterprise Pty Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff/fourth Respondent

Kings Head Tavern South Pty Ltd

Fifth Plaintiff/fifth Respondent

Superior Family Investments Pty Ltd

Sixth Plaintiff

Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory (before Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiffs;
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are defensive in character and if that affects the grant of security;
  3. 3 Whether delay in bringing the security for costs application justifies refusing or limiting the order;

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs accepted there was reason to believe they may be unable to pay any adverse costs order. While the proceedings had defensive elements, that factor alone did not preclude exercise of the court’s discretion to order security. Delay in filing the application was found not to have caused prejudice. Therefore, security was ordered for future costs only, limited to $199,900, payable in two tranches, to balance fairness given the unexplained delay.

Court Disposition

Security for costs granted in the sum of $199,900 for future costs, payable in two tranches; proceedings stayed if security not provided; plaintiffs to pay defendant's costs of notice of motion; liberty to apply as to the form of security.

Orders

  • Order first to fifth plaintiffs to provide security for the defendant's costs in the amount of $199,900 in two tranches: $99,950 within 28 days, $99,950 by 1 February 2021, by payment into court.
  • Order that the proceedings be stayed if security is not provided as above.