Trajkovski v Asiapac Securities Pte Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 191

Trajkovski v Asiapac Securities Pte Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 191

Although the parties initially indicated agreement on the amount of $60,000 for security for costs, that was subject to conditions that were not agreed. In the earlier judgment the Court had deliberately considered whether Asiapac should provide security for costs and concluded that the threshold issue had not been satisfied because Asiapac was in a position to pay costs if the relevant claims succeeded. Because the refusal to order security for costs was a deliberate decision rather than a clerical mistake or accidental slip, UCPR r 36.17 was not engaged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Correction of Orders Under the Slip Rule / By Way of Written Submissions After Judgment in Trajkovski V Asiapac Securities Pte Limited [2015] NSWSC 1432
Outcome
The Court declined to make an order under the slip rule.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'security for Costs' 'correction of Judgment or Order' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['slip Rule' 'security for Costs' 'correction of Judgment or Order' '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

Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Correction of Orders Under the Slip Rule / By Way of Written Submissions After Judgment in Trajkovski V Asiapac Securities Pte Limited [2015] NSWSC 1432

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should vary earlier orders under r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) on the basis of an alleged accidental slip or omission concerning security for costs.' 'Whether the earlier refusal to order security for costs was a clerical mistake or accidental slip, or instead a deliberate decision after consideration of the issues.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the parties initially indicated agreement on the amount of $60,000 for security for costs, that was subject to conditions that were not agreed. In the earlier judgment the Court had deliberately considered whether Asiapac should provide security for costs and concluded that the threshold issue had not been satisfied because Asiapac was in a position to pay costs if the relevant claims succeeded. Because the refusal to order security for costs was a deliberate decision rather than a clerical mistake or accidental slip, UCPR r 36.17 was not engaged.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to make an order under the slip rule.

Orders

  • ["Paragraphs [4] to [8] of the defendant's notice of motion filed 20 April 2015 should be dismissed." 'The Court declined to amend the earlier order.']