Pi v Zhou (No 3) [2017] NSWCA 224

Pi v Zhou (No 3) [2017] NSWCA 224

The applicant failed to provide security for costs as ordered and did not advance submissions addressing why proceedings should not be dismissed for this non-compliance. After considering the relevant factors and interests of justice, it was appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for default in providing security for costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (extension of Time to Appeal) / Application for Dismissal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs
Outcome
Dismissal of proceedings
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'extension of Time to Appeal']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'extension of Time to Appeal']

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

Appeal (extension of Time to Appeal) / Application for Dismissal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings should be dismissed for failure to provide security for costs as ordered by the Court']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide security for costs as ordered and did not advance submissions addressing why proceedings should not be dismissed for this non-compliance. After considering the relevant factors and interests of justice, it was appropriate to dismiss the proceedings for default in providing security for costs.

Court Disposition

Dismissal of proceedings

Orders

  • ['The summons filed on 8 March 2016 is dismissed' "Mr Pi to pay the respondents' costs as agreed or assessed"]