Maples v Hughes [2002] NSWSC 617

Maples v Hughes [2002] NSWSC 617

Although there was reason to believe the second plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if the defendant succeeded, security for costs should not be ordered because the first plaintiff, a natural person, remained a co-plaintiff and the claims of the first and second plaintiffs were completely interlocked as to liability and damages, so the defendant would have recourse against the first plaintiff for all costs if the action failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Proceedings / Defendant's Amended Notice of Motion for Security for Costs Against the Second Plaintiff and Related Costs Orders
Outcome
Defendant's motion for security for costs dismissed; costs orders made partly in favour of the defendant and partly in favour of the second plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporate Plaintiff Unable to Pay Costs' 'multiple Plaintiffs' 'costs of Motion' 'want of Prosecution']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'professional Negligence'] ['security for Costs' 'corporate Plaintiff Unable to Pay Costs' 'multiple Plaintiffs' 'costs of Motion' 'want of Prosecution']

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

Professional Negligence Proceedings / Defendant's Amended Notice of Motion for Security for Costs Against the Second Plaintiff and Related Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was reason to believe that the second plaintiff, being a body corporate, would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so." 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs against the second plaintiff.' 'Whether the presence of the first plaintiff as a natural person with completely overlapping claims meant security for costs should not be ordered against the corporate second plaintiff.' "What costs orders should be made on the defendant's motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was reason to believe the second plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if the defendant succeeded, security for costs should not be ordered because the first plaintiff, a natural person, remained a co-plaintiff and the claims of the first and second plaintiffs were completely interlocked as to liability and damages, so the defendant would have recourse against the first plaintiff for all costs if the action failed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion for security for costs dismissed; costs orders made partly in favour of the defendant and partly in favour of the second plaintiff.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's motion for security for costs is dismissed." "The second plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the notice of motion filed on 2 April 2002 and the defendant's costs of the amended notice of motion incurred prior to 5 July 2002, save for such costs as are referable to the application for...