Strata Plan 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1464

Strata Plan 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1464

The defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff owners corporation was either acting vexatiously or oppressively, or that it would be unable to pay an adverse costs order, as the owners corporation had demonstrated financial capability and organisation in raising levies and possibly obtaining loans. Therefore, the prerequisites for an order for security for costs were not satisfied under inherent or statutory powers.

Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Strata Plan 99960; Defendant/applicant: SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application – Determination of Defendant's Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Defendant’s application for security for costs dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Owners Corporation, Building Defects, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.21(1)(d)
Equity Building and Construction Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Owners Corporation Building Defects Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 42.21(1)(d)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Strata Plan 99960

Plaintiff/respondent

SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application – Determination of Defendant's Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to an order for security for costs against the plaintiff owners corporation under inherent or statutory power
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are vexatious or oppressive justifying security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the owners corporation is unlikely to be able to meet an adverse costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff owners corporation was either acting vexatiously or oppressively, or that it would be unable to pay an adverse costs order, as the owners corporation had demonstrated financial capability and organisation in raising levies and possibly obtaining loans. Therefore, the prerequisites for an order for security for costs were not satisfied under inherent or statutory powers.

Court Disposition

Defendant’s application for security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The builder’s (defendant’s) application for security for costs is dismissed with costs.