International Greetings (UK) Ltd (formerly Scandinavian Design Ltd) v Stansfield [2010] NSWSC 461

International Greetings (UK) Ltd (formerly Scandinavian Design Ltd) v Stansfield [2010] NSWSC 461

Further security was warranted only for future costs reasonably not covered by the earlier agreed security, including an extra hearing day, related preparation for issues beyond solvency, the security application, and some extra work not reasonably anticipated earlier. The defendants had not sufficiently explained why overlapping costs were much greater than those used for the first agreed security, and this, together with the apparent strength of the plaintiff's served evidence, the defendants' default in serving evidence, and the stage of the application, meant the earlier assessment should not be reopened at large. Additional security of $40,000 was ordered, stayed until the defendants...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application by the Defendants for Further Security for Costs
Outcome
Defendants' application for further security for costs granted in part; plaintiff ordered to provide further security of $40,000, stayed until the defendants serve their evidence.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'foreign Plaintiff Ordinarily Resident Outside the Jurisdiction' 'insolvent Trading' 'discretionary Considerations on Second Security for Costs Application']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law' 'equity'] ['security for Costs' 'foreign Plaintiff Ordinarily Resident Outside the Jurisdiction' 'insolvent Trading' 'discretionary Considerations on Second Security for Costs Application']

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

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application by the Defendants for Further Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order further security for costs against a foreign company plaintiff ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction.' 'If further security should be ordered, the amount of that security.' "Whether the defendants' second application improperly overlapped with security agreed on the first security for costs application." 'Whether any security order should be stayed until the defendants serve their evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Further security was warranted only for future costs reasonably not covered by the earlier agreed security, including an extra hearing day, related preparation for issues beyond solvency, the security application, and some extra work not reasonably anticipated earlier. The defendants had not sufficiently explained why overlapping costs were much greater than those used for the first agreed security, and this, together with the apparent strength of the plaintiff's served evidence, the defendants' default in serving evidence, and the stage of the application, meant the earlier assessment should not be reopened at large. Additional security of $40,000 was ordered, stayed until the defendants...

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for further security for costs granted in part; plaintiff ordered to provide further security of $40,000, stayed until the defendants serve their evidence.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to provide further security for costs in the sum of $40,000 by paying that sum into a controlled monies account with the plaintiff's solicitor." 'Order 1 is stayed until the defendants serve their evidence.' "The costs of the defendants' interlocutory process for security for costs filed on 11...