Eko Investments Pty Limited v Austruc Constructions Limited [2007] NSWSC 539

Eko Investments Pty Limited v Austruc Constructions Limited [2007] NSWSC 539

The plaintiff had not shown that its assets and related-party receivables would be sufficiently available to meet an adverse costs order, and although the proceedings were well advanced and contingencies required discounting, the first defendant was entitled to further security in the reduced amount of $140,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs / Application by the First Defendant for Additional Security for Costs
Outcome
Additional security ordered
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'building Defects' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['security for Costs' 'building Defects' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs / Application by the First Defendant for Additional Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should provide additional security for the first defendant's costs." "Whether the plaintiff's financial position showed it would be able to meet an adverse costs order." 'What amount of additional security should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had not shown that its assets and related-party receivables would be sufficiently available to meet an adverse costs order, and although the proceedings were well advanced and contingencies required discounting, the first defendant was entitled to further security in the reduced amount of $140,000.

Court Disposition

Additional security ordered

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is to provide additional security for costs in the sum of $140,000.']