Pestano & Anor v Madden & Ors [2007] NSWSC 545

Pestano & Anor v Madden & Ors [2007] NSWSC 545

Security for costs should not be ordered where substantial overlap of factual matters exists, hearing actions together would not materially increase hearing time or costs, and both plaintiffs are likely subject to any adverse costs order. Applications for security for costs are dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Douglas Pestano; Plaintiff: Morgan Price Pty Limited; Defendant: Phillip MacDonald Madden; Defendant: Julia Anne Madden; Defendant: Maddens Lawyers Business & Property Pty Ltd; Defendant: Mr A T Sutherland and six others t/as Eakin McCaffery Cox
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs and Stay / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Applications for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Stay of Proceedings, Retainer Disputes, Negligence, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Contributory Negligence
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Professional Negligence Security for Costs Stay of Proceedings Retainer Disputes Negligence Misleading or Deceptive Conduct +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Pestano

Plaintiff

Morgan Price Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Phillip MacDonald Madden

Defendant

Julia Anne Madden

Defendant

Maddens Lawyers Business & Property Pty Ltd

Defendant

Mr A T Sutherland and six others t/as Eakin McCaffery Cox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs and Stay / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should security for costs be ordered against plaintiffs?
  2. 2 Should proceedings be stayed pending provision of security?
  3. 3 Is there substantial overlap of factual issues between co-plaintiffs?

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should not be ordered where substantial overlap of factual matters exists, hearing actions together would not materially increase hearing time or costs, and both plaintiffs are likely subject to any adverse costs order. Applications for security for costs are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications for security for costs dismissed.
  • Plaintiffs' costs of each application to be borne by respective defendants.