Mualim v Dzelme [2020] NSWCA 333

Because appellants are resident outside Australia, have no assets in Australia, costs would not be recoverable domestically, merits of appeal are balanced, and security would not stifle the appeal, it is appropriate to order security for costs in the sum of $40,000.

Parties: First Appellant: Gani Mualim; Second Appellant: Jordia Mualim; First Respondent: Ricards Dzelme; Second Respondent: Pacific Springs Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 15 December 2020
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Application for Security for Costs in Court of Appeal
Outcome: Security for costs ordered; directions given; proceedings stayed on non-compliance
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Appeals, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Non Resident Litigants

Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appeals Enforcement of Costs Orders Non Resident Litigants

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Gani Mualim

First Appellant

Jordia Mualim

Second Appellant

Ricards Dzelme

First Respondent

Pacific Springs Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Security for Costs in Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against appellants resident outside Australia in an appeal matter

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; directions given; proceedings stayed on non-compliance

Orders

Appellants to provide security for costs of $40,000 by payment into court.
Payment to be made no later than 29 January 2021.