Mapeline Pty Limited -v- National Nominees Limited as custodian for Sunsuper Superannuation Fund, and Military Superannuation and Benefit Fund 1 [2014] NSWSC 906

Mapeline Pty Limited -v- National Nominees Limited as custodian for Sunsuper Superannuation Fund, and Military Superannuation and Benefit Fund 1 [2014] NSWSC 906

The motions for security for costs were dismissed because Mapeline had no means to provide security, the Andersons would be personally liable for any adverse costs order and were the principal beneficiaries of the claims, all plaintiffs were impecunious and an order for security would stultify the proceedings, and the claims had sufficient foundation at this stage and were not shown to be frivolous, more bound to fail than succeed, or vexatious.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / Contested Notices of Motion Heard and Determined Ex Tempore
Outcome
Motions dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity' 'stultification of Proceedings' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity' 'stultification of Proceedings' 'overriding Purpose']

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 Security for Costs in Equity Division Commercial List Proceedings / Contested Notices of Motion Heard and Determined Ex Tempore

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide security for the defendants' past and future costs of the proceedings." "Whether any order for security would stultify the proceedings given the plaintiffs' lack of resources." "Whether the plaintiffs' claims had sufficient foundation and were not frivolous or vexatious."]

Ratio Decidendi

The motions for security for costs were dismissed because Mapeline had no means to provide security, the Andersons would be personally liable for any adverse costs order and were the principal beneficiaries of the claims, all plaintiffs were impecunious and an order for security would stultify the proceedings, and the claims had sufficient foundation at this stage and were not shown to be frivolous, more bound to fail than succeed, or vexatious.

Court Disposition

Motions dismissed

Orders

  • ["The defendants' Notices of Motion for security for costs are dismissed with costs." 'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Practice Note which governs proceedings in this list, the costs are neither assessable nor payable until the conclusion of these proceedings at first instance.' 'By 10 October 2014...