Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 563

Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 563

Although the defendant is justified in seeking security for future costs due to a supervening change in the plaintiff's financial backing, the late stage in the proceedings makes an order for security for past costs oppressive, and the undertaking from Mr and Mrs Chow to satisfy any adverse costs order up to $120,000 is sufficient protection for future costs. Therefore, security for costs is not ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'delay in Application for Security for Costs' 'impecunious Corporate Plaintiff' 'undertaking for Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['security for Costs' 'delay in Application for Security for Costs' 'impecunious Corporate Plaintiff' 'undertaking for Costs']

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 / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered for past and/or future costs where application is brought late and plaintiff is impecunious' 'Effect of an undertaking by new owners of plaintiff to satisfy adverse costs orders up to a stated amount']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant is justified in seeking security for future costs due to a supervening change in the plaintiff's financial backing, the late stage in the proceedings makes an order for security for past costs oppressive, and the undertaking from Mr and Mrs Chow to satisfy any adverse costs order up to $120,000 is sufficient protection for future costs. Therefore, security for costs is not ordered.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ["Upon the undertaking by Chow Chan Lum and Ka Kow Yeung (via their solicitor Ted Dorotheos Tzovaras) to satisfy any adverse costs order against the first plaintiff up to $120,000, the defendant's notice of motion filed on 13 May 2009 is dismissed." 'The Court will hear the parties on costs at a time to be fixed.']