Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.1) [2003] NSWSC 722

Roach & Ors v Page & Ors (No.1) [2003] NSWSC 722

The application for security for costs was dismissed because according to established precedent, where a natural person is joined as co-plaintiff with an impecunious incorporated plaintiff and the claims substantially overlap, security for costs should not be ordered. There were no special reasons to depart from this approach.

Parties
Plaintiff: Walter Edward Roach; Plaintiff: Sydtech Pty Limited (in liquidation); Plaintiff: Winnote Pty Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Brian John Downey Page t/a Freehill Hollingdale Page; Defendant: Partners of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Sydney; Defendant: Partners of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Melbourne
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Post Interlocutory Motion Determination
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecunious Incorporated Plaintiffs, Co Plaintiffs, Professional Negligence
Practice & Procedure Security for Costs Impecunious Incorporated Plaintiffs Co Plaintiffs Professional Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Edward Roach

Plaintiff

Sydtech Pty Limited (in liquidation)

Plaintiff

Winnote Pty Limited (in liquidation)

Plaintiff

Brian John Downey Page t/a Freehill Hollingdale Page

Defendant

Partners of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Sydney

Defendant

Partners of Freehill Hollingdale & Page, Melbourne

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Post Interlocutory Motion Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should security for costs be ordered against impecunious incorporated plaintiffs when natural persons are co-plaintiffs with overlapping claims?
  2. 2 Is the lateness of the application a sufficient ground for dismissal?

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was dismissed because according to established precedent, where a natural person is joined as co-plaintiff with an impecunious incorporated plaintiff and the claims substantially overlap, security for costs should not be ordered. There were no special reasons to depart from this approach.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs as against incorporated plaintiffs dismissed.