McIntyre v Pettit [2020] NSWSC 498

McIntyre v Pettit [2020] NSWSC 498

The applicants have not established entitlement to funds paid into court as security for costs, since no costs order exists in their favour and the payment was made by Mrs McIntyre as security for potential costs. Accordingly, the funds and accrued interest must be paid to Mrs McIntyre.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'payment Out of Court Funds' 'costs Order' 'mareva Injunction']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'payment Out of Court Funds' 'costs Order' 'mareva Injunction']

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

Notice of Motion / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicants are entitled to funds paid into court as security for costs' "Interpretation of Levine J's order regarding security for costs" 'Application of cost orders to interlocutory proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants have not established entitlement to funds paid into court as security for costs, since no costs order exists in their favour and the payment was made by Mrs McIntyre as security for potential costs. Accordingly, the funds and accrued interest must be paid to Mrs McIntyre.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 6 June 2019 is dismissed.' "The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs." 'Pursuant to UCPR 41.3 and 41.8, the deposited funds paid into court on 14 May 1993 by Price Brent Solicitors in the sum of $20,500, together with interest accrued up to the date of this order is to be paid to...