Go For Your Life Pty Ltd v Charas Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 944

Go For Your Life Pty Ltd v Charas Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 944

Although the limited financial accounts gave reason to believe that the plaintiff might be unable to meet an adverse costs order, satisfying r 42.21(1)(d), security was refused as a matter of discretion because the plaintiff's invoice debt claim appeared strong, the defendant had not provided evidence establishing any genuine defence or answer to the debt, and the costs sought were disproportionate to the relatively simple claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Concerning Non Payment of Invoices; Application for Security for Costs / Defendant's Application for Security for Costs Before Defence Filed
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' "corporate Plaintiff's Ability to Pay Adverse Costs" 'discretion to Order Security' 'prospects of Success' 'genuineness of Defence' 'proportionality of Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' "corporate Plaintiff's Ability to Pay Adverse Costs" 'discretion to Order Security' 'prospects of Success' 'genuineness of Defence' 'proportionality of 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

Civil Proceedings Concerning Non Payment of Invoices; Application for Security for Costs / Defendant's Application for Security for Costs Before Defence Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was reason to believe that the plaintiff, being a corporation, would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so under r 42.21(1)(d) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005." 'Whether, if the threshold requirement was satisfied, the Court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs.' "Whether the apparent strength and genuineness of the plaintiff's claim and the absence of evidence of a genuine defence weighed against security." 'Whether the amount of security sought was disproportionate to the size and simplicity of the claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the limited financial accounts gave reason to believe that the plaintiff might be unable to meet an adverse costs order, satisfying r 42.21(1)(d), security was refused as a matter of discretion because the plaintiff's invoice debt claim appeared strong, the defendant had not provided evidence establishing any genuine defence or answer to the debt, and the costs sought were disproportionate to the relatively simple claim.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the application for security for costs.']