Kennedy v Stockland Development Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 10

Kennedy v Stockland Development Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 10

None of the circumstances in UCPR Pt 42 r 42.21(1) concerning natural persons arise in this case, and a security for costs order would effectively prevent the impecunious applicant from pursuing litigation brought in the public interest. The claim is arguable on its face, and the applicant is seeking to adduce further evidence. The balance of justice does not warrant making a security for costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Notice of Motion for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'impecunious Litigants' 'land Development' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage']
['civil Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['security for Costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'impecunious Litigants' 'land Development' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage']

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

Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a security for costs order ought to be made against an impecunious litigant who is a natural person and claims to be acting in the public interest' 'Whether circumstances in Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Pt 42 r 42.21(1) are satisfied' 'Whether the making of such an order would stultify public interest litigation']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the circumstances in UCPR Pt 42 r 42.21(1) concerning natural persons arise in this case, and a security for costs order would effectively prevent the impecunious applicant from pursuing litigation brought in the public interest. The claim is arguable on its face, and the applicant is seeking to adduce further evidence. The balance of justice does not warrant making a security for costs order.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ["The First Respondent's Notice of Motion filed 25 January 2011 is dismissed."]