TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd v Hua Chang Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1078

TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd v Hua Chang Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1078

Security for costs was warranted because it was common ground that TTM would be unable to pay HC's costs if unsuccessful, TTM was not acting purely defensively because it sought to recover about $780,000 from HC, and there was no suggestion that security would stultify the proceedings. The quantum was fixed at $40,000 because the estimated defence costs were about $80,000 but the costs of TTM's claim and HC's cross-claim were interconnected and should be divided equally. A freezing order was warranted because TTM was apparently controlled from China by Mr Wang, who had no ties to Australia and a positive incentive to remove sale proceeds offshore, making enforcement of any judgment by HC...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and a Freezing Order / Equity Applications List
Outcome
Security for costs order and freezing order to be granted.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'freezing Order' 'interlocutory Application' 'costs' 'risk of Removing Assets Out of Jurisdiction']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'freezing Order' 'interlocutory Application' 'costs' 'risk of Removing Assets Out of Jurisdiction']

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

Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and a Freezing Order / Equity Applications List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Hua Chang Pty Ltd should obtain security for its costs from TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd.' 'What quantum of security for costs should be ordered where the claim and cross-claim are interconnected and neither party is acting purely defensively.' 'Whether a freezing order should be made restraining TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd from selling or encumbering the remaining property due to the risk that assets would be removed from the jurisdiction.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was warranted because it was common ground that TTM would be unable to pay HC's costs if unsuccessful, TTM was not acting purely defensively because it sought to recover about $780,000 from HC, and there was no suggestion that security would stultify the proceedings. The quantum was fixed at $40,000 because the estimated defence costs were about $80,000 but the costs of TTM's claim and HC's cross-claim were interconnected and should be divided equally. A freezing order was warranted because TTM was apparently controlled from China by Mr Wang, who had no ties to Australia and a positive incentive to remove sale proceeds offshore, making enforcement of any judgment by HC...

Court Disposition

Security for costs order and freezing order to be granted.

Orders

  • ["TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd is to provide security for Hua Chang Pty Ltd's costs in the sum of $40,000 in a form acceptable to the Court, with the proceedings stayed until security is provided." 'Liberty is granted to TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd to apply for variation of the security order to enable...