JONG AND ANOR V YANG AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-3283

JONG AND ANOR V YANG AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-3283

Plaintiff is unable to meet an adverse costs order but the impecuniosity was not shown to have been caused by the defendants and the substantive claims, particularly against the solicitors, are weak or difficult to prove causation; accordingly it is just to order security for costs. The court fixed security at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-c256cf4c_7c4d_4aa2_9241_dc1073780758.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Yeon Soon Jong; Second Plaintiff: New World Vision Centre Limited; First Defendant: Do Yun Yang; Second Defendant: Kenton Chambers Lawyers; Third Defendant: Y T Choi Lawyers; Fourth Defendant: Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Security for Costs Under High Court Rule 60; Substantive Claims Include S146 Land Transfer Act 1952 and Professional Negligence Against Solicitors / Interlocutory (application for Security for Costs); Proceeding Stayed Pending Payment of Ordered Security
Outcome
Order for security for costs granted against first plaintiff (Yeon Soon Jong); proceeding stayed until security paid
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Wrongful Caveat (s146 Lta), Causation, Impecuniosity, Mortgagee Sale, Conflict of Interest
Civil Procedure Property Law Land Transfer Act 1952 Professional Negligence Costs Security for Costs Wrongful Caveat (s146 Lta) Causation +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeon Soon Jong

First Plaintiff

New World Vision Centre Limited

Second Plaintiff

Do Yun Yang

First Defendant

Kenton Chambers Lawyers

Second Defendant

Y T Choi Lawyers

Third Defendant

Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Security for Costs Under High Court Rule 60; Substantive Claims Include S146 Land Transfer Act 1952 and Professional Negligence Against Solicitors / Interlocutory (application for Security for Costs); Proceeding Stayed Pending Payment of Ordered Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff is unable to pay defendant costs if unsuccessful (threshold)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's impecuniosity was caused by defendants' actions
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's substantive claims have sufficient merit to justify refusing security

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff is unable to meet an adverse costs order but the impecuniosity was not shown to have been caused by the defendants and the substantive claims, particularly against the solicitors, are weak or difficult to prove causation; accordingly it is just to order security for costs. The court fixed security at $15,000 per defendant for each of the three applicants (total $45,000), payable in three equal staged tranches, and stayed the proceeding until payment.

Court Disposition

Order for security for costs granted against first plaintiff (Yeon Soon Jong); proceeding stayed until security paid

Orders

  • Security for costs ordered: $15,000 payable in respect of each of the three defendant applicants (Second, Third and Fourth Defendants), total $45,000
  • Payment to be made on a staged basis in three equal tranches of $15,000 each