NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Great Australian Operations Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Washington H. Soul Pattinson and Company Limited (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 114 Hearing dates: 29 November 2012 Decision date: 22 February 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Slattery J Decision: Security for Costs ordered against the plaintiff in the following terms: (1) $80,000 to be paid within 28 days; (2) a further $100,000 28 days after the determination or other resolution of the defendant's appeal against the Court's refusal to strike out the whole of the plaintiff's claim; and (3) a further $250,000 28 days after the plaintiff files its evidence in reply for the final hearing, otherwise the proceedings are stayed. The costs of the motion argued on 18 July 2012 will be the successful party's costs in the cause. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of this motion. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - Costs - defendant's motion to strike out plaintiff's claim partially successful - issue of validity of retainer of plaintiff's solicitor stood over to trial - defendant appeals against Court's refusal to strike out the whole of the plaintiff's claim - whether costs should be reserved or paid now by one or other party - Security for Costs - whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff - whether any (and the extent of any) past costs should be included in any order for security - what should be the amount of any security for costs to be paid. Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Great Australian Operations Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Washington Soul Pattinson and Company Limited [2012] NSWSC 1134; Deangrove Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] FCA 173; (2001) ACSR 465; Category: Costs Parties: Applicant: Great Australian Operations Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) Respondent: Washington H. Soul Pattinson and Company Limited Representation: Counsel: Applicant:- D.N. Hutley SC, C.N. Bova Respondent:- D. Neggo Solicitors: Applicant: Christopher Stephen Frawley, M + K Lawyers Respondent: Tom Bridges, Baker & McKenzie File Number(s): 2012/00122746 Publication restriction: None
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