The Owners – Strata Plan No 69746 v IPM Pty Ltd; The Owners – Strata Plan No 71241 v IPM Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 772

The Owners – Strata Plan No 69746 v IPM Pty Ltd; The Owners – Strata Plan No 71241 v IPM Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 772

Security for costs was appropriate because there is a real chance IPM Pty Ltd, as cross claimant, will be unable to satisfy an adverse costs order if unsuccessful, the cross claim is not purely defensive, and Aquatherm as cross defendant has reasonable prospects of success. Quantum of $300,000 in each proceeding was justified by credible estimates and the likely complexity and cost of defending the claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in each proceeding.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'practice and Procedure' 'building and Construction Defects']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'practice and Procedure' 'building and Construction Defects']

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 Application / Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against the cross claimant (IPM Pty Ltd) in favour of the cross defendant (Aquatherm Australia Pty Ltd)' "Whether there is reason to believe IPM Pty Ltd would be unable to pay Aquatherm's costs if unsuccessful" 'Whether the discretion to order security should be exercised and in what quantum']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was appropriate because there is a real chance IPM Pty Ltd, as cross claimant, will be unable to satisfy an adverse costs order if unsuccessful, the cross claim is not purely defensive, and Aquatherm as cross defendant has reasonable prospects of success. Quantum of $300,000 in each proceeding was justified by credible estimates and the likely complexity and cost of defending the claims.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in each proceeding.

Orders

  • ['The cross claimant (IPM Pty Ltd) provide security for the costs of the cross defendant (Aquatherm Australia Pty Ltd) in the sum of $300,000 in each proceeding.' 'The security be provided in the following tranches: (a) $100,000 no later than 21 days after the date of the order; (b) $100,000 no later than 21 days...