BizPay Group Pty Ltd v Bio Tec Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1583

BizPay Group Pty Ltd v Bio Tec Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1583

The offered undertaking by Riviera Capital, solely in its capacity as investment manager for SOF1 and limited to $405,301.28, is not sufficiently clear, effective, or easily enforceable to replace traditional security. Complex and opaque structure, uncertainty in access to funds, and practical enforcement difficulties justify ordering the plaintiffs to provide security in the quantified sums sought by the defendants.

Parties
First Plaintiff: BizPay Group Limited; Second Plaintiff: BP Fiduciary Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Bio Tec Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Mike Larry; Third Defendant: Roy Maalouf
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecunious Plaintiffs, Adequacy of Undertaking, Delay in Application, Corporate Litigation
Civil Procedure Corporations Trusts and Equity Security for Costs Impecunious Plaintiffs Adequacy of Undertaking Delay in Application Corporate Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BizPay Group Limited

First Plaintiff

BP Fiduciary Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Bio Tec Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Mike Larry

Second Defendant

Roy Maalouf

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the plaintiffs provide security for costs given their financial situation?
  2. 2 Is the undertaking offered by Riviera Capital as investment manager of SOF1 an adequate substitute for security for costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The offered undertaking by Riviera Capital, solely in its capacity as investment manager for SOF1 and limited to $405,301.28, is not sufficiently clear, effective, or easily enforceable to replace traditional security. Complex and opaque structure, uncertainty in access to funds, and practical enforcement difficulties justify ordering the plaintiffs to provide security in the quantified sums sought by the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Plaintiffs ordered to provide security for defendants’ costs in a total amount of $405,301.28 in a form suitable to the defendants.