Cody v Live Board Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 308
Leave to file further evidence was refused as the evidence would not change outcome and concerned deficiencies previously identified; security for costs was ordered against LBH in the sum of $250,000 based on the complexity and seriousness of the cross claim, with consideration for potential stultification, but reduction applied due to some prospects on a narrow issue; application to vary the prior costs order was refused as there was no material change of circumstances or new material; application for interlocutory injunction was refused for lack of serious issue to be tried and insufficient balance of convenience.
- Parties
- Cross Claimant: Live Board Holdings Ltd; First Cross Defendant: Cody Live Pty Ltd ACN 168 364 403; Second Cross Defendant: Cody Investments Pty Ltd ACN 100 588 903; Third Cross Defendant: Brain Beyond Pty Ltd ACN 128 068 082; Fourth Cross Defendant: Pierce Patrick Cody; Fifth Cross Defendant: Finola Anne Burke
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Proceeding With Cross Claims and Interlocutory Motions / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications: Security for Costs, Further Evidence, Costs Variation, and Dismissal of Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Applications mostly refused. Security for costs ordered. Proceedings stayed pending provision of security. Costs against cross claimant.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Interlocutory Injunction, Directors' Duties, Corporate Insolvency, Costs Applications
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Live Board Holdings Ltd
Cross Claimant
Cody Live Pty Ltd ACN 168 364 403
First Cross Defendant
Cody Investments Pty Ltd ACN 100 588 903
Second Cross Defendant
Brain Beyond Pty Ltd ACN 128 068 082
Third Cross Defendant
Pierce Patrick Cody
Fourth Cross Defendant
Finola Anne Burke
Fifth Cross Defendant
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding With Cross Claims and Interlocutory Motions / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications: Security for Costs, Further Evidence, Costs Variation, and Dismissal of Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Should leave be granted to adduce further evidence in relation to security for costs?
- 2 Should security for costs be ordered against the cross claimant (LBH), and in what quantum?
- 3 Should the prior interlocutory costs order be varied?
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to file further evidence was refused as the evidence would not change outcome and concerned deficiencies previously identified; security for costs was ordered against LBH in the sum of $250,000 based on the complexity and seriousness of the cross claim, with consideration for potential stultification, but reduction applied due to some prospects on a narrow issue; application to vary the prior costs order was refused as there was no material change of circumstances or new material; application for interlocutory injunction was refused for lack of serious issue to be tried and insufficient balance of convenience.
Court Disposition
Applications mostly refused. Security for costs ordered. Proceedings stayed pending provision of security. Costs against cross claimant.
Orders
- Order cross claimant to pay costs of cross defendants thrown away by filing third amended cross claim.
- Dismiss claim for interlocutory relief in par 1 of cross claimant's notice of motion filed 19 July 2016.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment