Drozda v Kishida [2021] NSWDC 281

Drozda v Kishida [2021] NSWDC 281

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the plaintiff was impecunious and such an order would stifle the proceedings, denying the plaintiff her right to seek compensation for significant injuries allegedly caused by the defendant. Further, the plaintiff’s impecuniosity was found to be attributable to the defendant’s conduct, and it is not permissible to make a security for costs order against a natural person solely by reason of impecuniosity.

Parties
Plaintiff: Claudia Drozda; First Defendant: Daiya Kishida
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Notice of Motion (security for Costs) Dismissed
Outcome
Notice of Motion for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Effect of Impecuniosity, Effect of Plaintiff's Foreign Residence
Costs Security for Costs Effect of Impecuniosity Effect of Plaintiff's Foreign Residence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claudia Drozda

Plaintiff

Daiya Kishida

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Notice of Motion (security for Costs) Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside Australia with no assets in the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether an order for security for costs would stifle proceedings due to plaintiff's impecuniosity
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's impecuniosity is attributable to the defendant's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the plaintiff was impecunious and such an order would stifle the proceedings, denying the plaintiff her right to seek compensation for significant injuries allegedly caused by the defendant. Further, the plaintiff’s impecuniosity was found to be attributable to the defendant’s conduct, and it is not permissible to make a security for costs order against a natural person solely by reason of impecuniosity.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion filed on 16 February 2021 is dismissed.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.