Great Scott International Pty Ltd v Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd and Another. [2005] NSWIRComm 133

Great Scott International Pty Ltd v Cosmetic Suppliers Pty Ltd and Another. [2005] NSWIRComm 133

The respondents failed to satisfy the evidentiary onus of demonstrating, on current and sufficient evidence, that the applicant company was unable to meet any adverse costs order as required by statute and court rules; therefore, the application for security for costs must be refused without consideration of further discretionary factors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (application for Security for Costs) in Leave to Appeal and Appeal Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Before Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity of Corporate Applicant' 'discretionary Factors in Security for Costs' 'evidentiary Onus in Interlocutory Applications']
['industrial Relations' 'corporate Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity of Corporate Applicant' 'discretionary Factors in Security for Costs' 'evidentiary Onus in Interlocutory Applications']

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

Notice of Motion (application for Security for Costs) in Leave to Appeal and Appeal Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Before Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents have satisfied the evidentiary onus to show the applicant would be unable to pay costs if ordered' 'What legal principles govern applications for security for costs against a corporate applicant' 'What role do discretionary factors such as prospects of success, delay, and impact on access to justice play in determining security for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to satisfy the evidentiary onus of demonstrating, on current and sufficient evidence, that the applicant company was unable to meet any adverse costs order as required by statute and court rules; therefore, the application for security for costs must be refused without consideration of further discretionary factors.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'Costs of the application are reserved.']