David Hurst and Philip Hosking in their capacities as Joint and Several Liquidators of One Build Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Metroplex Investments Pty Limited [2015] NSWDC 436

David Hurst and Philip Hosking in their capacities as Joint and Several Liquidators of One Build Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Metroplex Investments Pty Limited [2015] NSWDC 436

Security for costs should not be ordered against the liquidators because there was insufficient reason to believe they would be unable to satisfy costs orders; although power exists to order security against the company, the presence of natural person liquidators as plaintiffs and risk of stifling the proceedings weighed against granting security. The defendant’s notice of motion for security for costs is dismissed and the defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Notice of Motion for Security for Costs—interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Defendant's application for adjournment refused; defendant's notice of motion for security for costs dismissed; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion; matter listed for further directions.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'liquidators' 'costs Orders' 'impecunious Plaintiffs']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'liquidators' 'costs Orders' 'impecunious Plaintiffs']

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

Civil / Notice of Motion for Security for Costs—interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against liquidators and/or company in liquidation' 'Whether plaintiffs would be unable to pay adverse costs order' 'Discretionary factors relevant to ordering security for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should not be ordered against the liquidators because there was insufficient reason to believe they would be unable to satisfy costs orders; although power exists to order security against the company, the presence of natural person liquidators as plaintiffs and risk of stifling the proceedings weighed against granting security. The defendant’s notice of motion for security for costs is dismissed and the defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for adjournment refused; defendant's notice of motion for security for costs dismissed; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion; matter listed for further directions.

Orders

  • ["Defendant's application for an adjournment refused." "The defendant's notice of motion (filed 18 August 2015) is dismissed." "The defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion." 'List the matter for further directions on Monday, 23 November 2015 at 9.30am before the Judicial Registrar.']