Precious Metals Australia Limited v Xstrata Windimurra Pty Limited & Anor [2005] NSWSC 147

Precious Metals Australia Limited v Xstrata Windimurra Pty Limited & Anor [2005] NSWSC 147

The evidence clearly demonstrated reason to believe that PMA would not be able to satisfy any costs orders made against it. Although the expansion and complexity of the proceedings and uncertainties in costs estimates were relevant discretionary considerations, the defendants required fair protection. The appropriate security was $500,000, payable in two instalments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs / Notice of Motion Before a Four Week Hearing Commencing 4 July 2005
Outcome
Orders made for provision of security for costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporate Plaintiff Impecuniosity' 'cross Claims and Defensive Manoeuvres' 'discretionary Considerations in Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'corporate Plaintiff Impecuniosity' 'cross Claims and Defensive Manoeuvres' 'discretionary Considerations in 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

Security for Costs / Notice of Motion Before a Four Week Hearing Commencing 4 July 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was reason to believe that the plaintiff would be unable to satisfy any costs orders made against it in the proceedings.' "Whether the defendants' cross-claim was purely defensive or raised matters outside the plaintiff's claim in a way relevant to security for costs." 'What amount and timing of security for costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence clearly demonstrated reason to believe that PMA would not be able to satisfy any costs orders made against it. Although the expansion and complexity of the proceedings and uncertainties in costs estimates were relevant discretionary considerations, the defendants required fair protection. The appropriate security was $500,000, payable in two instalments.

Court Disposition

Orders made for provision of security for costs.

Orders

  • ['PMA is to provide security for costs in the amount of $500,000.' '$250,000 is to be paid on or before 15 May 2005.' '$250,000 is to be paid on or before 15 June 2005.']