Hague v Cordiner (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 23

Hague v Cordiner (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 23

The plaintiff was required to give security for the defendant's costs, but the court accepted the proposed undertaking over the BTC Markets cryptocurrency exchange account. Although cryptocurrency was assumed to be volatile, it was a recognised form of investment and the volatility could be addressed by monthly statements and notification if the account balance fell below the secured amount. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had not misstated his address and, having regard to his compliance with previous NSW Local Court litigation, the risk that he would disregard an undertaking to the court was slight.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceeding; Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in the form of the plaintiff's undertaking to the court; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'form of Security' 'cryptocurrency Investment Account' 'undertaking to the Court' 'ordinary Residence Outside Australia' 'address for Service']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['security for Costs' 'form of Security' 'cryptocurrency Investment Account' 'undertaking to the Court' 'ordinary Residence Outside Australia' 'address for Service']

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 Defamation Proceeding; Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be provided by an undertaking to the court over a cryptocurrency exchange account rather than payment into court.' 'Whether a cryptocurrency investment account was a sufficiently reliable asset for security for costs.' 'Whether the plaintiff had misstated his address in Australia with intent to deceive.' 'Whether the risk of breach of an undertaking to the court made the proposed form of security inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was required to give security for the defendant's costs, but the court accepted the proposed undertaking over the BTC Markets cryptocurrency exchange account. Although cryptocurrency was assumed to be volatile, it was a recognised form of investment and the volatility could be addressed by monthly statements and notification if the account balance fell below the secured amount. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had not misstated his address and, having regard to his compliance with previous NSW Local Court litigation, the risk that he would disregard an undertaking to the court was slight.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in the form of the plaintiff's undertaking to the court; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to r 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff give security for the defendant's costs of the proceedings by, within 7 days, filing in Court and providing to the defendant's solicitors an undertaking in the annexed form." 'On or before 19 March 2020, the defendant file any...