Metro Environmental Logistics Pty Ltd v Newcastle Port Corporation (No 6) [2024] NSWSC 958

Metro Environmental Logistics Pty Ltd v Newcastle Port Corporation (No 6) [2024] NSWSC 958

The proposed undertakings from Jetset and Cereo were not accepted because the carve outs would mean the undertakings were not to the same effect as those given by Mr Ellis and Mr Deane, there was no evidence that the proposed distributions or funding fell within the ordinary business of Jetset or Cereo, and the suggested use of NSR shares to fund the litigation appeared inconsistent with MEL's earlier submissions on the security for costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs – Security for Costs / Procedural Ruling on the Papers Concerning Proposed Undertakings After Refusal of Security for Costs
Outcome
Undertakings proffered by shareholders of plaintiff not accepted.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'undertakings as to Costs' 'dissipation of Assets' 'carve Outs to Undertakings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'undertakings as to Costs' 'dissipation of Assets' 'carve Outs to Undertakings']

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

Costs – Security for Costs / Procedural Ruling on the Papers Concerning Proposed Undertakings After Refusal of Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the undertakings proposed to be given by Jetset Properties Pty Ltd and Cereo Pty Ltd should be accepted with carve outs for distributions, litigation funding, development funding, and dealings with shares in North Scottsdale Resources Pty Ltd.' 'Whether the proposed undertakings were to the same effect as undertakings previously proffered by Mr Ellis and Mr Deane and relied on in declining to order security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed undertakings from Jetset and Cereo were not accepted because the carve outs would mean the undertakings were not to the same effect as those given by Mr Ellis and Mr Deane, there was no evidence that the proposed distributions or funding fell within the ordinary business of Jetset or Cereo, and the suggested use of NSR shares to fund the litigation appeared inconsistent with MEL's earlier submissions on the security for costs application.

Court Disposition

Undertakings proffered by shareholders of plaintiff not accepted.

Orders

  • []