Hung v Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 123

Hung v Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 123

The Court ruled that as there is complete identity between the interests of the corporate and natural person appellants, and special circumstances justifying security against the natural persons were not established, security for costs should not be ordered. Even if it were a case for security, the grossly inflated estimates of costs disentitled the moving party to discretionary relief.

Parties
First Appellant; First Respondent to Motion: Edgar Yan Kai Hung; Second Appellant; Second Respondent to Motion: Trevor David Chappell; Third Appellant; Third Respondent to Motion: First on First Development Pty Ltd; First Respondent to Appeal; First Applicant on Motion: Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd; Second Respondent to Appeal; Second Applicant on Motion: Hsu Allen; Third Respondent to Appeal; Third Applicant on Motion: Zachary Chang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Notice of Motion for Security for Costs Arising in Appeal From a Judgment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Ex Tempore Ruling on Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Notice of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeals, Procedural Law
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appeals Procedural Law

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edgar Yan Kai Hung

First Appellant; First Respondent to Motion

Trevor David Chappell

Second Appellant; Second Respondent to Motion

First on First Development Pty Ltd

Third Appellant; Third Respondent to Motion

Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd

First Respondent to Appeal; First Applicant on Motion

Hsu Allen

Second Respondent to Appeal; Second Applicant on Motion

Zachary Chang

Third Respondent to Appeal; Third Applicant on Motion

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Notice of Motion for Security for Costs Arising in Appeal From a Judgment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Ex Tempore Ruling on Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order security for costs where appellants include both natural persons and a corporate appellant
  2. 2 Whether there are special circumstances justifying an order for security for costs against the natural person appellants
  3. 3 Whether grossly inflated cost estimates should disentitle the respondent to an order for security

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ruled that as there is complete identity between the interests of the corporate and natural person appellants, and special circumstances justifying security against the natural persons were not established, security for costs should not be ordered. Even if it were a case for security, the grossly inflated estimates of costs disentitled the moving party to discretionary relief.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Notice of motion filed 6 May 2022 dismissed with costs.