Grocon Group Holdings Pty Limited v Infrastructure NSW [2020] NSWSC 1194

Grocon Group Holdings Pty Limited v Infrastructure NSW [2020] NSWSC 1194

Security for costs was ordered against the plaintiffs because the defendant established there was credible evidence to believe the plaintiffs could not pay costs and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the inability was materially caused by defendant's conduct or that an order would stultify proceedings. Suppression order was granted over specified confidential financial documents as necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and because the public interest in open justice was outweighed in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (interlocutory) in Proceeding for Damages and Equitable Compensation / Ruling on Security for Costs and Suppression Order Applications
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against plaintiffs in the sum of $1 million, in two tranches; suppression order granted over specified confidential materials; costs of the security application awarded to defendant; costs of the suppression order application reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['security for Costs' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']

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 (interlocutory) in Proceeding for Damages and Equitable Compensation / Ruling on Security for Costs and Suppression Order Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiffs under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or r 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)' "Whether INSW's conduct materially contributed to the plaintiffs' impecuniosity such that security for costs should be refused" 'Whether making an order for security would stultify the proceedings' 'Whether a suppression order should be granted over certain confidential financial documents under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered against the plaintiffs because the defendant established there was credible evidence to believe the plaintiffs could not pay costs and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the inability was materially caused by defendant's conduct or that an order would stultify proceedings. Suppression order was granted over specified confidential financial documents as necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and because the public interest in open justice was outweighed in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against plaintiffs in the sum of $1 million, in two tranches; suppression order granted over specified confidential materials; costs of the security application awarded to defendant; costs of the suppression order application reserved.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiffs to give security for defendant's costs up to conclusion of expert evidence and mediation in a sum of $1 million, by two tranches of $500,000 each (due 2 October 2020 and 13 November 2020)." 'Security to be provided by payment into Court, unconditional bank guarantee, or as agreed.' 'Proceedings to be...