Nerez Grant v Gwendoline Peggy Hall & Ors [2012] NSWSC 779

Nerez Grant v Gwendoline Peggy Hall & Ors [2012] NSWSC 779

None of the factors advanced by the first defendant, separately or in combination, justified the exercise of discretion to order security for costs. Plaintiff's impecuniosity is not determinative and additional factors were either not sufficiently established or too speculative.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'impecuniosity' 'estoppel']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'impecuniosity' 'estoppel']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs against an impecunious plaintiff' "Whether additional factors beyond plaintiff's poverty favour granting security for costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

None of the factors advanced by the first defendant, separately or in combination, justified the exercise of discretion to order security for costs. Plaintiff's impecuniosity is not determinative and additional factors were either not sufficiently established or too speculative.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ["The first defendant's application for an order for security for costs be dismissed." "The first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs."]