NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Liu v Sha [2022] NSWCA 192 Hearing dates: 26 September 2022 Date of orders: 26 September 2022 Decision date: 29 September 2022 Before: Kirk JA Decision: 1. The appellant to provide within 14 days security in the sum of $20,000 for the respondent's costs of the appeal by payment of that amount into court. 2. The appeal be stayed until the appellant has complied with order 1 above. 3. The appellant to pay 60% of the respondent's costs of the motion filed on 8 August 2022. Catchwords: COSTS — Security for costs — Relevant factors — Strength of the claim — Degree of unreality about claims in light of undisputed facts — Discretion — Mere non-payment of judgment debt does not indicate stultification of appeal — Lack of evidence of financial position of either party — Order not to be refused purely on the basis that claimant of security may have been well-resourced Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 51.50 Cases Cited: Brown v King [2022] NSWCA 75 Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25 Xenos v FAL Healthy Beverages Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 240 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Hua Liu (Appellant; respondent on the motion)
Yunlong Sha (Respondent; applicant on the motion) Representation: Counsel:
H Zhao (Appellant; respondent on the motion)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate