GIO General Limited v Ali Elskaf [2024] NSWCA 8

GIO General Limited v Ali Elskaf [2024] NSWCA 8

The applicant is entitled to the sum paid into Court as security for costs because sufficient attempts to serve the respondent were made and further attempts would waste costs; dispensation under UCPR 18.2(2)(c) is appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: GIO General Limited; Respondent: Ali Elskaf
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Application for Payment of Security for Costs and Dispensation of Service
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs
Civil Procedure Security for Costs 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 1 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GIO General Limited

Applicant

Ali Elskaf

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Application for Payment of Security for Costs and Dispensation of Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the notice of motion should be dispensed with under Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 18.2(2)(c)
  2. 2 Entitlement to payment of security for costs after unsuccessful attempts at service

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is entitled to the sum paid into Court as security for costs because sufficient attempts to serve the respondent were made and further attempts would waste costs; dispensation under UCPR 18.2(2)(c) is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The sum of $15,000 paid by the respondent into Court pursuant to a security for costs order made on 28 February 2019 be paid into the trust fund of Ligeti Partners, Solicitors.
  • Order pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 18.2(2)(c) dispensing with requirement for service of the notice of motion.