J Group Constructions Pty Ltd v PGA Rendering Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 438

J Group Constructions Pty Ltd v PGA Rendering Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 438

Security for costs was warranted because J Group had very small paid up capital, no identified assets, no evidence of solvency or ability to meet an adverse costs order despite notice of the defendants' concerns, and no natural person accepting responsibility for costs; those matters supported an inference that there was reason to believe J Group may be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so. No factor such as stifling of the claim was shown to justify refusing security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Concerning Alleged Defective Building Work / Defendants' Application for Security for Costs and Plaintiff's Application for an Adjournment
Outcome
Plaintiff's adjournment application refused; defendants' application for security for costs granted; proceedings to be stayed on default; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'adjournment' 'adverse Costs Order' 'solvency' 'construction Adjudication']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'building and Construction'] ['security for Costs' 'adjournment' 'adverse Costs Order' 'solvency' 'construction Adjudication']

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 Alleged Defective Building Work / Defendants' Application for Security for Costs and Plaintiff's Application for an Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to meet an adverse costs order.' "Whether the Court should order the plaintiff to provide security for the defendants' costs." 'What amount and timing of security for costs should be ordered.' "Whether the plaintiff's application for an adjournment should be refused."]

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was warranted because J Group had very small paid up capital, no identified assets, no evidence of solvency or ability to meet an adverse costs order despite notice of the defendants' concerns, and no natural person accepting responsibility for costs; those matters supported an inference that there was reason to believe J Group may be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so. No factor such as stifling of the claim was shown to justify refusing security.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's adjournment application refused; defendants' application for security for costs granted; proceedings to be stayed on default; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application for an adjournment is refused." 'Order that the plaintiff, within 28 days of today, provide security in the sum of $30,000 to be held in a joint account in the name of the solicitors of the plaintiff and the solicitors of the defendants or in such other account or form as may be agreed...