NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd v Fasha [2024] NSWSC 1386 Hearing dates: 14 October 2024 Date of orders: 31 October 2024 Decision date: 31 October 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: (1) Pursuant to r 42.21 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and s 1335(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the plaintiff is to provide security for the first, second and third defendants' costs in the sum of $50,000. (2) Such security is to be made by payment into Court or other means satisfactory to the Registrar by 11 December 2024. (3) Stay the proceedings until security for costs is provided in accordance with these orders. (4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the motion of 16 July 2024. Catchwords: COSTS – security for costs – relevant factors – impecuniosity – strength of the claim – security for costs application not a mini trial of the merits – plaintiff to provide security for costs Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 60 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 601AG, 1335 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.21 Cases Cited: Barton v Minister for Foreign Affairs (1984) 2 FCR 463 Dalma Formwork Pty Ltd (admin apptd) v Concrete Constructions Group Ltd [1998] NSWSC 472 Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 664; 208 ALR 564 Idoport Pty Ltd v NAB [2002] NSWCA 271 Jazabas Pty Ltd v Haddad [2010] NSWSC 594 KP Cable Investments Pty Ltd v Meltglow Pty Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 189 Live Board Holdings Ltd v Cody Live Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 302 Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 231 Secured Lending 1 Pty Ltd v Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 851 Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd (2022) 276 CLR 1; [2022] HCA 6 Tyneside Property Management Pty Ltd v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 40 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Luvnlife Consulting Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) John Fasha (First Defendant) Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) John Fasha Solicitors Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel: H W M Stitt (Plaintiff) K E Holcombe (Defendants)
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