Sigalla v Nationwide News Pty Limited and Anor [2010] NSWSC 1419

Sigalla v Nationwide News Pty Limited and Anor [2010] NSWSC 1419

The defendants did not establish that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside New South Wales. The evidence showed that, although the plaintiff had previously resided in the United States, his residency there ended with his loss of employment and cancellation of his visa. He and his family now reside in Sydney, and there is no evidence of a continuing residence elsewhere. Therefore, the requirements for an order for security for costs under Rule 42.21(1)(a) were not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Motion / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'ordinarily Resident' 'bankruptcy' 'discretionary Judgment' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'ordinarily Resident' 'bankruptcy' 'discretionary Judgment' '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

Motion / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside New South Wales for the purposes of Rule 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules' 'Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff' "Whether the plaintiff's insolvency is relevant to ordering security for costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not establish that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside New South Wales. The evidence showed that, although the plaintiff had previously resided in the United States, his residency there ended with his loss of employment and cancellation of his visa. He and his family now reside in Sydney, and there is no evidence of a continuing residence elsewhere. Therefore, the requirements for an order for security for costs under Rule 42.21(1)(a) were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ["Defendants' motion for security for costs dismissed" "Defendants to bear the plaintiff's costs of the motion, as agreed or assessed"]