Llorente v Marshall Bodyguard & Security P/L [2017] NSWSC 1212

Llorente v Marshall Bodyguard & Security P/L [2017] NSWSC 1212

Security for costs was ordered because the respondents resided outside the jurisdiction, the applicants could not automatically register and enforce any costs judgment in Colombia, there was no relevant delay or oppression, the claim against Ms Llorente appeared doomed to fail, and the respondents failed to establish that they were impecunious or that security would stultify the proceedings, particularly given the unexplained receipt of more than $65,000 after their son's death.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Security for Costs in Cross Claims Brought Pursuant to the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw) / Motion Heard and Determined; Orders Made for Security for Costs
Outcome
Motion granted; security for costs ordered and costs of the motion reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'overseas Resident Cross Claimants' 'impecuniosity' 'stultification of Proceedings' 'enforcement of Costs Orders Overseas']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'compensation to Relatives'] ['security for Costs' 'overseas Resident Cross Claimants' 'impecuniosity' 'stultification of Proceedings' 'enforcement of Costs Orders Overseas']

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

Notice of Motion for Security for Costs in Cross Claims Brought Pursuant to the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw) / Motion Heard and Determined; Orders Made for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the seventh defendant/cross-claimant and/or eighth defendant/cross-claimant should give security for the applicants' costs of the cross-claims under r. 42.21 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)." 'Whether the respondents were impecunious and whether an order for security would stultify the proceedings.' "Whether the applicants' inability to register and enforce a costs judgment in Colombia favoured an order for security." 'Whether the respondents should be permitted to re-open their case on the motion to adduce oral evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the respondents resided outside the jurisdiction, the applicants could not automatically register and enforce any costs judgment in Colombia, there was no relevant delay or oppression, the claim against Ms Llorente appeared doomed to fail, and the respondents failed to establish that they were impecunious or that security would stultify the proceedings, particularly given the unexplained receipt of more than $65,000 after their son's death.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; security for costs ordered and costs of the motion reserved.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r. 42.21 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the seventh defendant/cross-claimant and/or the eighth defendant/cross-claimant is to give security in the sum of $50,000 in respect of the costs of the second plaintiff/cross-defendant of the cross-claims brought against him.' 'The amount the subject of order 1...