Boros v Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 43

Boros v Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 43

The security ordered by Meagher JA was against the contingency that Mr Boros failed in his appeal and was for the preparation and hearing of the appeal. That contingency did not occur, and the order was not intended to secure PPI's costs of the security application itself or another interlocutory application. The moneys paid into Court as security were therefore to be released to Mr Boros without retention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders Concerning Costs and Security for Costs / On the Papers After the Appellant Succeeded on Appeal
Outcome
Moneys paid into Court as security for costs were ordered to be released to Mr Boros, and PPI was ordered to pay Mr Boros' costs of the argument concerning release of the moneys.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'money Paid Into Court' 'release of Security After Successful Appeal' 'interlocutory Costs Orders' 'set Off of Costs Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'money Paid Into Court' 'release of Security After Successful Appeal' 'interlocutory Costs Orders' 'set Off of Costs Orders']

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

Consequential Orders Concerning Costs and Security for Costs / On the Papers After the Appellant Succeeded on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether moneys paid into Court by the successful appellant as security for the costs of the appeal should be released to him.' 'Whether any part of the security should be retained because the first respondent had interlocutory costs orders in its favour from the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The security ordered by Meagher JA was against the contingency that Mr Boros failed in his appeal and was for the preparation and hearing of the appeal. That contingency did not occur, and the order was not intended to secure PPI's costs of the security application itself or another interlocutory application. The moneys paid into Court as security were therefore to be released to Mr Boros without retention.

Court Disposition

Moneys paid into Court as security for costs were ordered to be released to Mr Boros, and PPI was ordered to pay Mr Boros' costs of the argument concerning release of the moneys.

Orders

  • ['Order that moneys paid into Court by Mr Boros as security for costs pursuant to the orders of Meagher JA be released to Mr Boros.' "Order that Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd pay Mr Boros' costs in relation to the argument concerning the release of the moneys paid into Court."]