Jaydan Pty Ltd v You Move Me Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 278

Jaydan Pty Ltd v You Move Me Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 278

The defendants established by cogent evidence a real likelihood that the plaintiff, a proprietary limited company with no demonstrated assets or business and minimal paid-up capital, would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs order. The plaintiff adduced no evidence about its own financial resources or funds available from those behind it, did not show that its impecuniosity was caused by the defendants, and did not establish that security would stifle the proceedings. The prospects of success were treated as neutral. Balancing the prejudice to the defendants from defending an old claim without costs protection against the prejudice to the plaintiff, the defendants were entitled to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Stay or Placement in the Not Ready List
Outcome
Defendants' application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed until security is provided; plaintiff's applications for security for costs from the first defendant/cross-claimant and for placement in the not ready list refused or dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'corporate Plaintiff Impecuniosity' 'not Ready List' 'cross Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings' 'corporate Plaintiff Impecuniosity' 'not Ready List' 'cross Claim']

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

Civil Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Stay or Placement in the Not Ready List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was reason to believe that Jaydan Pty Ltd would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so under r 42.21(1)(d) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)." "Whether the plaintiff's impecuniosity was attributable to the defendants' conduct." 'Whether an order for security for costs would stifle the proceedings.' "Whether the prospects of success or merits of the plaintiff's proceedings affected the security for costs application." "Whether the proceedings should be stayed indefinitely or placed in the not ready list pending further orders because of Mr Eliyahu's condition." "Whether the plaintiff/cross-defendant's application for security for costs from the first defendant/cross-claimant should proceed in light of Dr Goldbarsht's undertaking."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants established by cogent evidence a real likelihood that the plaintiff, a proprietary limited company with no demonstrated assets or business and minimal paid-up capital, would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs order. The plaintiff adduced no evidence about its own financial resources or funds available from those behind it, did not show that its impecuniosity was caused by the defendants, and did not establish that security would stifle the proceedings. The prospects of success were treated as neutral. Balancing the prejudice to the defendants from defending an old claim without costs protection against the prejudice to the plaintiff, the defendants were entitled to...

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed until security is provided; plaintiff's applications for security for costs from the first defendant/cross-claimant and for placement in the not ready list refused or dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Within 28 days of the date of this order, the plaintiff is to provide security for the defendants' costs pursuant to rule 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ('UCPR') and section 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by paying into Court the sum of $73,000." 'The proceedings are stayed in...