Liprini v Thirdi William Street Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1375

Liprini v Thirdi William Street Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1375

Security for costs should not be ordered where the representative plaintiff holds significant real property equity, a group funding agreement exists binding other owners with significant assets, and the plaintiff's case appears strong, so there is no substantial risk that costs orders would go unsatisfied if made.

Parties
Plaintiff: Keiran Liprini; First Defendant: Thirdi William Street Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: H&M Constructions (NSW) No. 2 Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Aiken Design and Consulting Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Kimy Air Conditioning Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Scott Collis Consulting Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: David Mathew Aiken
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding (equity Commercial List) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Notices of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Representative Proceedings, Statutory Warranties, Implied Statutory Duties
Civil Procedure Equity Building and Construction Security for Costs Representative Proceedings Statutory Warranties Implied Statutory Duties

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keiran Liprini

Plaintiff

Thirdi William Street Pty Ltd

First Defendant

H&M Constructions (NSW) No. 2 Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Aiken Design and Consulting Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Kimy Air Conditioning Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Scott Collis Consulting Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

David Mathew Aiken

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding (equity Commercial List) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against representative plaintiff in proceedings involving statutory warranties and statutory duties
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff or funding parties are at risk of not satisfying costs orders
  3. 3 Whether conditions under UCPR r 42.21 or s 183 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) are met

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should not be ordered where the representative plaintiff holds significant real property equity, a group funding agreement exists binding other owners with significant assets, and the plaintiff's case appears strong, so there is no substantial risk that costs orders would go unsatisfied if made.

Court Disposition

Notices of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The notices of motion filed on 13 October 2022, 20 October 2022 and 21 October 2022 each be dismissed with costs.