Central Queensland Development Corporation Pty Ltd (formerly Bluechip Development Corporation Gladstone) Pty Ltd v BMT & Assoc Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 992

Central Queensland Development Corporation Pty Ltd (formerly Bluechip Development Corporation Gladstone) Pty Ltd v BMT & Assoc Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 992

The defendant established that the plaintiffs should provide security for costs because the evidence indicated that neither plaintiff had assets or capacity to meet an adverse costs order, the plaintiffs provided no contrary evidence, no relevant delay or prejudice was shown, and the defendant's assessment of anticipated costs was not unreasonable, although the amount of security was reduced to $120,000 having regard to the competing cost assessments and possible limitations on the scope of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Motion in Civil Damages Proceedings / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 14 June 2017 Seeking Security for Costs Pursuant to UCPR 42.21 or Alternatively S 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; proceedings against the defendant stayed until security is provided; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity of Corporate Plaintiffs' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Security' 'assessment of Anticipated Costs' 'delay in Bringing Security for Costs Application']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity of Corporate Plaintiffs' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Security' 'assessment of Anticipated Costs' 'delay in Bringing Security for Costs Application']

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

Security for Costs Motion in Civil Damages Proceedings / Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 14 June 2017 Seeking Security for Costs Pursuant to UCPR 42.21 or Alternatively S 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide security for the defendant's costs under UCPR 42.21 or alternatively s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001." 'Whether the evidence established reason to believe that neither plaintiff would be able to meet an adverse costs order.' 'Whether any delay in bringing the security for costs application counted against the defendant.' "Whether the defendant's assessment of anticipated costs was reasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant established that the plaintiffs should provide security for costs because the evidence indicated that neither plaintiff had assets or capacity to meet an adverse costs order, the plaintiffs provided no contrary evidence, no relevant delay or prejudice was shown, and the defendant's assessment of anticipated costs was not unreasonable, although the amount of security was reduced to $120,000 having regard to the competing cost assessments and possible limitations on the scope of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; proceedings against the defendant stayed until security is provided; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Order pursuant to UCPR 42.21 that the plaintiffs give security for the costs of the defendant by providing it with a bank guarantee in the sum of $120,000.' 'Order that the proceedings against the defendant be stayed until order (1) has been complied with.' "Order the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the...