Lars S.A. v Bone China Pty Limited & Ors [2015] NSWSC 1070

Lars S.A. v Bone China Pty Limited & Ors [2015] NSWSC 1070

The court exercised its discretion not to order security for costs against Bone China Pty Limited because on the evidence, the company’s impecuniosity was more likely caused by the alleged conduct of LARS S.A. and/or Dr Laboureau, and imposition of a security order would stifle Bone China’s pursuit of its cross-claim.

Parties
Plaintiff: LARS S.A.; Defendant/cross Claimant: Bone China Pty Limited; First Cross Defendant: LARS S.A.; Second Cross Defendant: Jacques Phillippe Laboureau; Third Cross Defendant: Bertus Jozef Quint
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Representation, Authority, Causation
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Impecuniosity Representation Authority Causation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LARS S.A.

Plaintiff

Bone China Pty Limited

Defendant/cross Claimant

LARS S.A.

First Cross Defendant

Jacques Phillippe Laboureau

Second Cross Defendant

Bertus Jozef Quint

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against Bone China Pty Limited on application by the second cross defendant
  2. 2 Whether Bone China Pty Limited is impecunious and if so, whether that impecuniosity is attributable to the alleged conduct of LARS S.A. or Dr Laboureau
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would stifle the cross-claim proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion not to order security for costs against Bone China Pty Limited because on the evidence, the company’s impecuniosity was more likely caused by the alleged conduct of LARS S.A. and/or Dr Laboureau, and imposition of a security order would stifle Bone China’s pursuit of its cross-claim.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs