Woolworths Limited v About Life Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1340

Woolworths Limited v About Life Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1340

The risk of non-payment of costs by About Life Pty Ltd justifies an order for security; arguments regarding personal undertakings, causation of impecuniosity, and defensive proceedings are rejected as insufficient to outweigh the discretion in favour of granting security. Only Ms Phillips offered an undertaking, not all who stood behind AL, and the causal link between alleged loss and Maddocks' actions was too remote. The proceedings were not deemed defensive in the relevant sense.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Cross Claim / Ruling on Security for Costs Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity' 'undertaking by Director or Shareholder' 'defensive Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity' 'undertaking by Director or Shareholder' 'defensive Proceedings']

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

Application for Security for Costs in Cross Claim / Ruling on Security for Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should a security for costs order be made against an impecunious corporate cross-claimant?' 'Is the undertaking by an individual director sufficient to resist a security for costs application?' "Is the cause of the plaintiff's impecuniosity attributable to the defendant?" "Are the proceedings brought by the plaintiff 'defensive' in nature so as to resist a security for costs order?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of non-payment of costs by About Life Pty Ltd justifies an order for security; arguments regarding personal undertakings, causation of impecuniosity, and defensive proceedings are rejected as insufficient to outweigh the discretion in favour of granting security. Only Ms Phillips offered an undertaking, not all who stood behind AL, and the causal link between alleged loss and Maddocks' actions was too remote. The proceedings were not deemed defensive in the relevant sense.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • ["Order that the cross-claimant provide security for the cross-defendants' costs of the second cross-claim in the sum of $250,000 by payment of that sum into Court or otherwise in a form acceptable to the Registrar, in accordance with the timetable set out in Order 2." 'The security specified in Order 1 be provided...