Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd [2022] NSWCA 168

Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd [2022] NSWCA 168

Special circumstances for security for costs were found but, given the likelihood of stultification and reasonably arguable grounds of appeal, no order for security was made. The stay of costs assessment was granted, conditioned on undertakings by appellant and Mr Anderson, as the assessment would likely be futile or duplicated if the appeal succeeded.

Parties
Appellant: Daniela Alejandra Anderson; First Respondent: Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd; Second Respondent: Nicola Lesleigh Garrett; Third Respondent: Samuel Mark Renauf; Fourth Respondent: Falcon Prime Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: Acorn Capital Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Albany Capital Investors Pty Ltd; Seventh Respondent: Ashington Capital Pty Ltd (in liq); Eighth Respondent: Ashington Management Pty Ltd (in liq)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory (security for Costs and Stay of Costs Orders)
Outcome
Applications for security for costs dismissed; stay of costs orders granted upon undertakings
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Stay of Costs Orders, Fiduciary Duties, Knowing Assistance, Damages for Loss of a Chance, Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Security for Costs Stay of Costs Orders Fiduciary Duties Knowing Assistance Damages for Loss of a Chance Assessment of Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniela Alejandra Anderson

Appellant

Canaccord Genuity Financial Ltd

First Respondent

Nicola Lesleigh Garrett

Second Respondent

Samuel Mark Renauf

Third Respondent

Falcon Prime Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Acorn Capital Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Albany Capital Investors Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Ashington Capital Pty Ltd (in liq)

Seventh Respondent

Ashington Management Pty Ltd (in liq)

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory (security for Costs and Stay of Costs Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against appellant
  2. 2 Whether stay of assessment of costs of trial should be granted
  3. 3 Merits of the appellant's proposed appeal including issues of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, and losses suffered

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances for security for costs were found but, given the likelihood of stultification and reasonably arguable grounds of appeal, no order for security was made. The stay of costs assessment was granted, conditioned on undertakings by appellant and Mr Anderson, as the assessment would likely be futile or duplicated if the appeal succeeded.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs dismissed; stay of costs orders granted upon undertakings

Orders

  • Stay orders (1)-(15) made in the Equity Division on 24 May 2022 until 21 days after determination of the appeals, conditioned on written undertakings by appellant and Craig Anderson not to dispose of their assets except in the ordinary course or to fund the appeal.
  • Costs of the stay motion to be appellant's costs in the appeal, payable by the first, second, third and fifth respondents.