JAQUES v MAIN [2016] NZHC 1978

JAQUES v MAIN [2016] NZHC 1978

Defendants adduced sufficient evidence (equivocal trust assurances, incomplete financial disclosure, historic bankruptcy and business failures) to establish a reasonable belief under r 5.45(1)(b) that the plaintiff might be unable to meet an adverse costs award; an adverse inference from the plaintiff's refusal to provide financial particulars was justified; the Associate Judge's exercise of discretion in ordering $30,000 security was not plainly wrong and was within the Court's broad discretion, therefore the review is declined and the Associate Judge's interlocutory orders stand.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 1978
Parties
Plaintiff: David Arthur Jaques; First Defendant: Victor Raymond Main; Second Defendant: Thomas Clarence Hodgson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 August 2016
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceedings (contract/dispute) / Application for Review (rehearing) of Associate Judge's Security for Costs Decision
Outcome
Application for review declined; Associate Judge's order for security for costs upheld
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Summary Judgment, Settlement Agreement, Penal Clauses, Costs Assessment, Review of Interlocutory Decision
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Law Equity/trusts Security for Costs Summary Judgment Settlement Agreement Penal Clauses +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Arthur Jaques

Plaintiff

Victor Raymond Main

First Defendant

Thomas Clarence Hodgson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceedings (contract/dispute) / Application for Review (rehearing) of Associate Judge's Security for Costs Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold under High Court Rules r 5.45(1)(b) (reason to believe plaintiff will be unable to pay defendant's costs) was met
  2. 2 Whether Associate Judge properly exercised discretion to order security for costs and fix quantum
  3. 3 Whether Associate Judge erred in relation to costs on the earlier summary judgment application

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants adduced sufficient evidence (equivocal trust assurances, incomplete financial disclosure, historic bankruptcy and business failures) to establish a reasonable belief under r 5.45(1)(b) that the plaintiff might be unable to meet an adverse costs award; an adverse inference from the plaintiff's refusal to provide financial particulars was justified; the Associate Judge's exercise of discretion in ordering $30,000 security was not plainly wrong and was within the Court's broad discretion, therefore the review is declined and the Associate Judge's interlocutory orders stand.

Court Disposition

Application for review declined; Associate Judge's order for security for costs upheld

Orders

  • Associate Judge's order that plaintiff provide security for costs in the sum of $30,000 into Court is upheld (originally ordered to be paid by 24 June 2016)
  • Review applicant (David Arthur Jaques) to pay 2B costs plus disbursements to the respondents on the application for review