Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Pham and Ors [2010] NSWSC 886

Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Pham and Ors [2010] NSWSC 886

The Court determined that justice did not permit further orders for security in respect of past costs due to the defendants' delay, which was oppressive; however, further security was ordered for future costs in specified amounts and tranches, since the plaintiff, being in liquidation, had not shown that the proceedings would be stultified if such orders were made and no credible funding from creditors existed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Judgment on Defendants' Motions for Additional Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for further security for costs in respect of past costs refused; application for further security for future costs granted.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'costs' 'corporations in Liquidation']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'costs' 'corporations in Liquidation']

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

Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Judgment on Defendants' Motions for Additional Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether further security for costs should be ordered under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or Rule 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005' 'Whether further security for costs should apply to past and/or future costs' 'Whether the proceedings would be stultified by orders for further security' 'Whether delay in seeking further security affects entitlement' "Whether the defendants contributed to the plaintiff's financial position"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that justice did not permit further orders for security in respect of past costs due to the defendants' delay, which was oppressive; however, further security was ordered for future costs in specified amounts and tranches, since the plaintiff, being in liquidation, had not shown that the proceedings would be stultified if such orders were made and no credible funding from creditors existed.

Court Disposition

Application for further security for costs in respect of past costs refused; application for further security for future costs granted.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff to provide second defendant a further bank guarantee for $90,000 within 28 days.' 'Plaintiff to provide other defendants a further bank guarantee for $100,000 within 28 days.' 'Plaintiff to provide second defendant a further bank guarantee for $90,000 within 14 days after all of second defendant’s...