A1 for Maintenance Pty Ltd v Lehal Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1476

A1 for Maintenance Pty Ltd v Lehal Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1476

There is credible evidence to believe the applicant will be unable to pay the respondents' costs if unsuccessful in its claim, enlivening the power under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court's discretion warrants an order for security in the amount of $30,000 for costs since 1 January 2018, with leave for further application for security after allocation of hearing dates. Delay was not significant and does not preclude security. Proceedings will be stayed if security is not provided.

Parties
Applicant: A1 for Maintenance Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Lehal Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Ravi Inder Singh; Third Respondent: Majinder Singh; Fourth Respondent: Rajiv Singh; Fifth Respondent: Jasvinder Singh; Sixth Respondent: JFK Australia Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Andrew Krisnadharma; Eighth Respondent: Gurdit Singh
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in favour of respondents. Security ordered in the amount of $30,000. Proceedings to be stayed if security not provided. Costs of application awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 1335, Discretionary Power of the Court, Evidence of Inability to Pay Costs
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Security for Costs Corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 1335 Discretionary Power of the Court Evidence of Inability to Pay 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A1 for Maintenance Pty Ltd

Applicant

Lehal Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Ravi Inder Singh

Second Respondent

Majinder Singh

Third Respondent

Rajiv Singh

Fourth Respondent

Jasvinder Singh

Fifth Respondent

JFK Australia Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Andrew Krisnadharma

Seventh Respondent

Gurdit Singh

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is reason to believe the applicant will be unable to pay the respondents' costs if unsuccessful
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs
  3. 3 Whether adequate evidence supports the quantum of security sought by respondents

Ratio Decidendi

There is credible evidence to believe the applicant will be unable to pay the respondents' costs if unsuccessful in its claim, enlivening the power under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court's discretion warrants an order for security in the amount of $30,000 for costs since 1 January 2018, with leave for further application for security after allocation of hearing dates. Delay was not significant and does not preclude security. Proceedings will be stayed if security is not provided.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in favour of respondents. Security ordered in the amount of $30,000. Proceedings to be stayed if security not provided. Costs of application awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The applicant to provide security for the first to seventh respondents' costs in the amount of $30,000 prior to 16 October 2018.
  • In default of compliance with order 1, the proceedings be stayed until further order.