Ezzo v Grille [2003] NSWSC 776

Ezzo v Grille [2003] NSWSC 776

Because the plaintiff was resident overseas, there was no evidence that he had assets in Australia, enforcement of any costs order in the United States appeared problematic, the plaintiff had shown capacity to provide security, the defendant was not required to identify or prove defences before determination of security or before s7A issues, and the estimated costs supported the amount sought, the discretion under SCR Pt 53 r2(1)(a) should be exercised to order security of $AUD40,000 and stay the plaintiff's action until security is provided.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding; Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Application by Defendant for Security for Costs Before Trial of S7 a Issues
Outcome
Defendant's application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'plaintiff Resident Outside the State' 'stay of Proceedings' 'defamation Act 1974 (nsw), S7 A' 'supreme Court Rules (nsw), Pt 53 R2(1)(a)']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'plaintiff Resident Outside the State' 'stay of Proceedings' 'defamation Act 1974 (nsw), S7 A' 'supreme Court Rules (nsw), Pt 53 R2(1)(a)']

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

Defamation Proceeding; Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Application by Defendant for Security for Costs Before Trial of S7 a Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff, who resides in South Carolina, United States of America, should be ordered to provide security for the defendant's costs." "Whether the plaintiff's action should be stayed until security is provided." 'Whether the defendant was required to identify or evidence defences or objections to the statement of claim before the security for costs application was determined.' 'What amount of security was appropriate for costs up to and including a s7A trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff was resident overseas, there was no evidence that he had assets in Australia, enforcement of any costs order in the United States appeared problematic, the plaintiff had shown capacity to provide security, the defendant was not required to identify or prove defences before determination of security or before s7A issues, and the estimated costs supported the amount sought, the discretion under SCR Pt 53 r2(1)(a) should be exercised to order security of $AUD40,000 and stay the plaintiff's action until security is provided.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • ["Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order the plaintiff is to provide security for the defendant's costs in these proceedings in the sum of $AUD40,000 in a form acceptable to the Registrar and the plaintiff's action be stayed until provision of such security." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's...