Levy v Bablis (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 100

Security for costs should be paid to respondent because appellant was unsuccessful and has not contended that the security exceeds recoverable costs; releasing security to appellant would defeat the purpose of the order.

Parties: Appellant: Julian Emmanuel Levy; Respondent: Peter Bablis
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 03 May 2013
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Post Judgment Applications
Outcome: Application for release of security to appellant refused; sum ordered paid to respondent; application to discharge confidentiality order refused; appellant to pay respondent's costs of applications dealt with by judgment.
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Costs, Confidentiality Orders

Civil Procedure Security for Costs Costs Confidentiality Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Julian Emmanuel Levy

Appellant

Peter Bablis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

1 Whether security for costs should be released to appellant or paid to respondent
2 Whether confidentiality order pertaining to Exhibit F should be discharged

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for release of security to appellant refused; sum ordered paid to respondent; application to discharge confidentiality order refused; appellant to pay respondent's costs of applications dealt with by judgment.

Orders

Order that the amount of $125,000 paid into Court by the appellant, as security for costs, be paid to the respondent.
Appellant's application to discharge confidentiality order, in respect of Exhibit F in the appeal, refused.