Levy v Bablis [2012] NSWCA 128

Levy v Bablis [2012] NSWCA 128

The appellant has not demonstrated a material change in circumstances since the orders for security for costs and self-executing dismissal were made, nor shown error within House v The King in the exercise of discretion by the prior judge. Most evidence relied on was available well before earlier orders and was not put forward for forensic reasons. Therefore, relief from the obligation to provide security and discharge/variation of prior orders should be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Discharge/variation of Security for Costs and Dismissal Orders in Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed, leave granted to file amended notice of motion, costs ordered against appellant, security deadline fixed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders' 'dismissal of Appeals' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders' 'dismissal of Appeals' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Discharge/variation of Security for Costs and Dismissal Orders in Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a material change in circumstances since prior security for costs and self-executing dismissal order' 'Whether error has been shown in application of discretion by prior judge' 'Whether fresh evidence should justify relief from security for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant has not demonstrated a material change in circumstances since the orders for security for costs and self-executing dismissal were made, nor shown error within House v The King in the exercise of discretion by the prior judge. Most evidence relied on was available well before earlier orders and was not put forward for forensic reasons. Therefore, relief from the obligation to provide security and discharge/variation of prior orders should be refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed, leave granted to file amended notice of motion, costs ordered against appellant, security deadline fixed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the appellant to file the amended notice of motion handed up in Court on 30 April 2012.' 'Dismiss the amended notice of motion.' 'Fix 15 May 2012 as the date by which $95,000 is to be paid into Court pursuant to Order 2 of the orders of 28 February 2012 (as subsequently varied as to the deadline for...