Mongey v Demetriou [2019] NSWSC 444

Mongey v Demetriou [2019] NSWSC 444

The balance of competing factors favoured ordering security: the plaintiff was resident in Ireland, had no assets in New South Wales, chose the New South Wales jurisdiction, and recovery of costs in Ireland under an Australian judgment was by no means straightforward. Although the second defendant delayed in bringing the application, there was no material showing prejudice beyond the bare presumption arising from delay, and that did not outweigh the factors favouring security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings; Application for Security for Costs / Decision on the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 15 March 2019 Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Security for costs ordered for the second defendant; proceedings stayed pending compliance.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'plaintiff Ordinarily Resident Outside Australia' 'delay in Applying for Security for Costs' 'enforcement of Australian Costs Orders in Ireland' 'loan Agreement']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'contracts'] ['security for Costs' 'plaintiff Ordinarily Resident Outside Australia' 'delay in Applying for Security for Costs' 'enforcement of Australian Costs Orders in Ireland' 'loan Agreement']

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

Common Law Proceedings; Application for Security for Costs / Decision on the Second Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 15 March 2019 Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff, who is ordinarily resident in Ireland and has no assets in New South Wales, should be ordered to provide security for the second defendant's costs under UCPR 42.21(1)(a)." "Whether the second defendant's delay of almost eleven months in bringing the security for costs application justified refusing security as a discretionary matter." 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of competing factors favoured ordering security: the plaintiff was resident in Ireland, had no assets in New South Wales, chose the New South Wales jurisdiction, and recovery of costs in Ireland under an Australian judgment was by no means straightforward. Although the second defendant delayed in bringing the application, there was no material showing prejudice beyond the bare presumption arising from delay, and that did not outweigh the factors favouring security.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered for the second defendant; proceedings stayed pending compliance.

Orders

  • ['Order the plaintiff within 28 days to provide security for the costs of the second defendant in the amount of $50,000 in a form suitable to the second defendant and to the Court.' 'Stay the proceedings pending compliance by the plaintiff with order (1).' 'Order that the costs of this application should be the...