Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 584

Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 584

The plaintiffs were required to provide further security for costs of $100,000 by 5pm on 24 May 2013 because no satisfactory evidence justified the later date sought by the plaintiffs, the Individual Defendants had succeeded in obtaining security for costs, and the usual consequence of non-payment was a stay rather than dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Application Concerning Timing of Provision of Security for Costs, Consequence of Non Payment of Security, and Costs of the Application for Security
Outcome
Security for costs ordered to be paid into Court by 5pm on 24 May 2013; proceedings against the fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth defendants to be stayed if the security is not paid; plaintiffs ordered to pay those defendants' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'timing of Provision of Security' 'consequence of Non Payment of Security' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'timing of Provision of Security' 'consequence of Non Payment of Security' 'costs']

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 / Application Concerning Timing of Provision of Security for Costs, Consequence of Non Payment of Security, and Costs of the Application for Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['When the plaintiffs should provide the further security for costs previously determined to be payable.' 'Whether non-payment of security should result in a stay of the proceedings or dismissal of the proceedings against the Individual Defendants.' 'Who should pay the costs of the application for security.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were required to provide further security for costs of $100,000 by 5pm on 24 May 2013 because no satisfactory evidence justified the later date sought by the plaintiffs, the Individual Defendants had succeeded in obtaining security for costs, and the usual consequence of non-payment was a stay rather than dismissal.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered to be paid into Court by 5pm on 24 May 2013; proceedings against the fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth defendants to be stayed if the security is not paid; plaintiffs ordered to pay those defendants' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs provide further security for costs of the fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth defendants in the sum of $100,000.' 'That sum is to be paid into Court by 5pm on 24 May 2013.' 'If the plaintiffs, either themselves or their servants or agents, fail to comply with the preceding order the proceedings...