Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Limited [2020] NSWSC 1852

Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Limited [2020] NSWSC 1852

The Court refused to order further security for past costs or additional security for the fifth defendant's future costs because doing so would likely stultify the proceedings, jeopardise the imminent trial, entail unreasonable prejudice to the plaintiff given her impecuniosity and demonstrated difficulty raising funds, and the litigation funding agreement did not sufficiently evidence ability to secure such costs. Timing and case management considerations also weighed heavily against making the order.

Parties
Plaintiff: Daniela Anderson; First Defendant: Canaccord Genuity Financial Limited; Second Defendant: Nicola Garrett; Third Defendant: Samuel Renauf; Fourth Defendant: PPB Pty Limited (Falcon Prime Pty Ltd); Fifth Defendant: Accorn Capital Limited; Sixth Defendant: Albany Capital Investors Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Security for Costs Motion / Pre Trial; Hearing of Defendants' Motions for Security for Past Costs and Additional Security
Outcome
Defendants' motions for security for past costs and for additional security dismissed with costs to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Litigation Funding, Cost Orders, Case Management
Civil Procedure Equity Security for Costs Litigation Funding Cost Orders Case Management

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniela Anderson

Plaintiff

Canaccord Genuity Financial Limited

First Defendant

Nicola Garrett

Second Defendant

Samuel Renauf

Third Defendant

PPB Pty Limited (Falcon Prime Pty Ltd)

Fourth Defendant

Accorn Capital Limited

Fifth Defendant

Albany Capital Investors Pty Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Security for Costs Motion / Pre Trial; Hearing of Defendants' Motions for Security for Past Costs and Additional Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order further security for past costs (costs incurred prior to June 2019) against an impecunious plaintiff who has only recently obtained litigation funding
  2. 2 Whether additional security for future costs should be ordered due to changes in legal representation/counsel rates

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to order further security for past costs or additional security for the fifth defendant's future costs because doing so would likely stultify the proceedings, jeopardise the imminent trial, entail unreasonable prejudice to the plaintiff given her impecuniosity and demonstrated difficulty raising funds, and the litigation funding agreement did not sufficiently evidence ability to secure such costs. Timing and case management considerations also weighed heavily against making the order.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motions for security for past costs and for additional security dismissed with costs to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Defendants' applications for security for past costs are dismissed.
  • Application for additional security for future costs by fifth defendant is dismissed.