Morris v Hanley [2000] NSWSC 957

Morris v Hanley [2000] NSWSC 957

The plaintiff is ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of $115,000, as her claim is unlikely to succeed, is partly brought to harass the defendants, and the costs risk to the defendants justifies the order despite the plaintiff's poverty; proceedings stayed pending provision of security.

Parties
Plaintiff: Janine Morris; Defendant: Jack Norman Hanley; Defendant: Geoffrey Donald Reid; Defendant: Lynda Maree Cole; Defendant: Christine Valmae Hayward; Defendant: Anthony Bodycote; Defendant: Robyn Janelle Haydon; Defendant: Daphne Olive Boyd; Defendant: Beverley Joy Armfield; Defendant: Gayle Hanley; Defendant: Cecil Bellchambers; Defendant: Mariani Holdings Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory (motion for Security for Costs)
Outcome
Security for costs ordered
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Fiduciary Duty, Maxims of Equity, Company Law
Equity Procedure Security for Costs Fiduciary Duty Maxims of Equity Company Law

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janine Morris

Plaintiff

Jack Norman Hanley

Defendant

Geoffrey Donald Reid

Defendant

Lynda Maree Cole

Defendant

Christine Valmae Hayward

Defendant

Anthony Bodycote

Defendant

Robyn Janelle Haydon

Defendant

Daphne Olive Boyd

Defendant

Beverley Joy Armfield

Defendant

Gayle Hanley

Defendant

Cecil Bellchambers

Defendant

Mariani Holdings Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory (motion for Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to provide security for costs under the Court's inherent power
  2. 2 Whether the action is harassing and vexatious warranting security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff’s impecuniosity is relevant to the order sought

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of $115,000, as her claim is unlikely to succeed, is partly brought to harass the defendants, and the costs risk to the defendants justifies the order despite the plaintiff's poverty; proceedings stayed pending provision of security.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered

Orders

  • The plaintiff provide the sum of $115,000 as security for costs of the defendants.
  • Liberty to the defendants to move to increase such security no later than seven days before the date fixed for the final hearing.