Zakka v George Elias t/as Cadmus Lawyers [2012] NSWCA 277

Zakka v George Elias t/as Cadmus Lawyers [2012] NSWCA 277

The respondents did not demonstrate the existence of special circumstances warranting an order for security for costs under r 51.50(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The appellant's appeal would be stultified if an order for security were made, and the prospective benefit to the major creditor is insufficient to justify an order. The appellant's impecuniosity arose from the respondents' breaches for which they are sued, and there is no litigation funder or third-party unfairness present.

Parties
Appellant: Victor Zakka; First Respondent: George Elias t/as Cadmus Lawyers; Second Respondent: Delilah Rahe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Respondents' notices of motion seeking security for costs dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Special Circumstances, Impecunious Appellant, Benefit to Creditors
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Special Circumstances Impecunious Appellant Benefit to Creditors

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Zakka

Appellant

George Elias t/as Cadmus Lawyers

First Respondent

Delilah Rahe

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether special circumstances exist to warrant an order for provision of security for costs
  2. 2 whether the appeal would be stultified by a security for costs order
  3. 3 relevance of benefit to appellant's creditors if appeal succeeds

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not demonstrate the existence of special circumstances warranting an order for security for costs under r 51.50(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The appellant's appeal would be stultified if an order for security were made, and the prospective benefit to the major creditor is insufficient to justify an order. The appellant's impecuniosity arose from the respondents' breaches for which they are sued, and there is no litigation funder or third-party unfairness present.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notices of motion seeking security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Respondents' notices of motion for security for costs dismissed.
  • Respondents to pay costs of the application.