13 Dec 2005
NEV MELLON ELECTRICAL LIMITED & ANOR V AAPC N.Z. PTY LIMITED HC WN CIV-2005-485-268
- Citation
- openlaw-16b0dcfe_19ae_42ca_80a9_b7cc5b981043.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The application for security for costs failed because the threshold in r60(1)(b) was not met: there was no satisfactory evidential foundation of impecuniosity as each plaintiff produced director statements and confidential accounts (one plaintiff was demonstrably solvent), and the existence of 18 joint plaintiffs made it unlikely none could meet costs; accordingly security was declined. The plaintiffs' application for an inquiry under r384 was inappropriate at interlocutory stage because r384 is generally for quantification after liability; instead the Court will appoint an independent expert…