Stoltenberg v Bolton [2019] NSWCA 71

Stoltenberg v Bolton [2019] NSWCA 71

Special circumstances were established because Mr Stoltenberg owned no assets from which an adverse costs order could be satisfied, had unpaid costs and damages liabilities, and had evinced an intention to denude himself of assets while retaining influence over property held through family-related corporate structures. Although the appeal was not treated as manifestly groundless, the Court was not persuaded that a modest order for security would stultify it, and security of $20,000 was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Court of Appeal Application Under R 51.50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Before Determination of the Appeal
Outcome
Appeal stayed pending provision of security for the respondent's costs; respondent granted leave to apply for dismissal if security is not provided within 42 days.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'special Circumstances' 'impecuniosity' 'stultification of Appeal' 'appeal From Defamation Judgment']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['security for Costs' 'special Circumstances' 'impecuniosity' 'stultification of Appeal' 'appeal From Defamation Judgment']

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 for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Court of Appeal Application Under R 51.50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Before Determination of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether special circumstances existed to order security for the respondent's costs of the appeal under r 51.50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005." "Whether an order for security would stultify the appellant's appeal." 'What amount of security should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances were established because Mr Stoltenberg owned no assets from which an adverse costs order could be satisfied, had unpaid costs and damages liabilities, and had evinced an intention to denude himself of assets while retaining influence over property held through family-related corporate structures. Although the appeal was not treated as manifestly groundless, the Court was not persuaded that a modest order for security would stultify it, and security of $20,000 was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal stayed pending provision of security for the respondent's costs; respondent granted leave to apply for dismissal if security is not provided within 42 days.

Orders

  • ["The appeal be stayed until such time as security for the respondent's costs of the appeal in the sum of $20,000 is provided in a form satisfactory to the Registrar." 'The respondent have leave to apply for dismissal of the appeal for want of despatch in the event that the security is not provided within 42 days.']