Ritson v Leighton [2015] NSWCA 62

Ritson v Leighton [2015] NSWCA 62

The notice of motion was dismissed because the threshold requirements in UCPR r 42.21(1)(b) and (c) were not met: the evidence did not provide reason to believe that Mr Ritson's failure to state his residential address was with intent to deceive, or that any change of address was made to avoid the consequences of the proceedings. In any event, the Court was not persuaded that exceptional circumstances existed under UCPR r 59.11 to justify security for costs in judicial review proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Motion in Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion by the First Respondent Pending Hearing of the Applicant's Judicial Review Application
Outcome
First respondent's notice of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'failure to State Residential Address' 'intention to Deceive' 'change of Address to Avoid Consequences of Proceedings' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'discretionary Considerations']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'judicial Review'] ['security for Costs' 'failure to State Residential Address' 'intention to Deceive' 'change of Address to Avoid Consequences of Proceedings' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'discretionary Considerations']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion by the First Respondent Pending Hearing of the Applicant's Judicial Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was reason to believe that the applicant's failure to state, or misstatement of, his address in the summons was made with intention to deceive for the purposes of UCPR r 42.21(1)(b)." 'Whether there was reason to believe that the applicant had changed address with a view to avoiding the consequences of the proceedings for the purposes of UCPR r 42.21(1)(c).' 'Whether exceptional circumstances existed so as to permit security for costs in judicial review proceedings under UCPR r 59.11.' 'Whether, if power existed, discretionary considerations and the amount sought justified an order for security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because the threshold requirements in UCPR r 42.21(1)(b) and (c) were not met: the evidence did not provide reason to believe that Mr Ritson's failure to state his residential address was with intent to deceive, or that any change of address was made to avoid the consequences of the proceedings. In any event, the Court was not persuaded that exceptional circumstances existed under UCPR r 59.11 to justify security for costs in judicial review proceedings.

Court Disposition

First respondent's notice of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's motion for security for costs is dismissed." "The first respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the notice of motion for security for costs."]