Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v SST Consulting Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 43

Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited v SST Consulting Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 43

The provision of litigation funding by a non-party for reward, without that funder providing an indemnity for adverse costs, does not of itself amount to an abuse of process, and thus does not enliven the Supreme Court's power to order costs against a non-party under UCPR r 42.3(2)(c).

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited; Respondents: SST Consulting Pty Ltd & Ors; Respondents: Rickard Constructions Pty Limited (subject to deed of company arrangement) & Ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia, on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Litigation Funding, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Litigation Funding Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Limited

Appellant

SST Consulting Pty Ltd & Ors

Respondents

Rickard Constructions Pty Limited (subject to deed of company arrangement) & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia, on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales has power to order costs against a non-party litigation funder who has not indemnified the funded party against adverse costs orders under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.3(2)(c).

Ratio Decidendi

The provision of litigation funding by a non-party for reward, without that funder providing an indemnity for adverse costs, does not of itself amount to an abuse of process, and thus does not enliven the Supreme Court's power to order costs against a non-party under UCPR r 42.3(2)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal in Matter No S167/2009 dismissed with costs.
  • Appeal in Matter No S168/2009 dismissed with costs.