JSR GROUP LIMITED & ORS v ADAVA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED & ORS [2018] NZHC 2681

JSR GROUP LIMITED & ORS v ADAVA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED & ORS [2018] NZHC 2681

The Judge was satisfied r 5.45(1)(b) was met on the evidence, the defendants had demonstrated steps taken to notify the plaintiffs, and it was just to order security for costs of $34,000 to be paid into court; the appropriate accompanying relief was to stay the plaintiffs' claim until payment is made (r 5.45(3)(b)).

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2681
Parties
First Plaintiff: JSR Group Limited; Second Plaintiff: Fabri-Cell International Limited (In liquidation and receivership); Third Plaintiff: Bimlesh Ram; Fourth Plaintiff: Ashka Kant; First Defendant: Adava Holdings Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Trudi Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Avon Cook; Fourth Defendant (discontinued): Mario Quitaneg Molera
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Civil Application for Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; plaintiffs' claim stayed until payment of security
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Stay of Proceedings, Strike Out, Service/notice
Civil Procedure Costs Insolvency Security for Costs Stay of Proceedings Strike Out Service/notice

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSR Group Limited

First Plaintiff

Fabri-Cell International Limited (In liquidation and receivership)

Second Plaintiff

Bimlesh Ram

Third Plaintiff

Ashka Kant

Fourth Plaintiff

Adava Holdings Pty Limited

First Defendant

Trudi Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Avon Cook

Third Defendant

Mario Quitaneg Molera

Fourth Defendant (discontinued)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Civil Application for Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether r 5.45(1)(b) High Court Rules 2016 was satisfied to justify security for costs
  2. 2 Appropriate form of relief (payment into court vs strike out) and whether to stay proceedings pending payment
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs were given adequate notice and opportunity to oppose

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge was satisfied r 5.45(1)(b) was met on the evidence, the defendants had demonstrated steps taken to notify the plaintiffs, and it was just to order security for costs of $34,000 to be paid into court; the appropriate accompanying relief was to stay the plaintiffs' claim until payment is made (r 5.45(3)(b)).

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; plaintiffs' claim stayed until payment of security

Orders

  • The plaintiffs must pay the sum of $34,000 into court as security for costs.
  • The plaintiffs' claim is stayed until that sum is paid.