NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Plevey [2014] NSWCA 374 Hearing dates: 30 October 2014 Decision date: 30 October 2014 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Barrett JA at [1] Decision: 1. Dismiss Summons seeking leave to appeal. 2. Order applicant to pay respondents' costs. 3. Grant leave to respondents' to assess and enforce costs order forthwith. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: APPEAL - leave to appeal - where no reasons for judgment given ordering security for costs - whether appropriate vehicle to consider issues arising
COSTS - security for costs - where two separate sets of proceedings - whether defendant in one proceeding may obtain security for costs incurred in other proceeding in which it is moving party - UCPR, r 42.21(1), Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335(1) Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 28.5, 42.21(1) Cases Cited: ABB Service Pty Ltd v Pyrmont Light Rail Co Ltd [2006] NSWSC 187; 57 ACSR 122 Demag-Lauchhammer Maschinenbau Und Stahlbau G.m.b.H v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd [1966] 2 NSWR 3 Rajski v Computer Manufacture & Design Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 122 Winterfield v Bradnum (1878) 3 QBD 23 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: HP Mercantile Pty Ltd (Applicant) Gregory Plevey (First Respondent) Jillian Plevey (Second Respondent) Antony Kubicki (Third Respondent) Mark Venables (Fourth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: P M Knowles (Applicant) B Kremer (Defendants) Solicitors: Versace McKenzie Lawyers (Applicant) Tiernan Lawyers (First and Second Respondents) Jonathan Eastoe (Third and Fourth Respondents) File Number(s): 2014/160423 Decision under appeal Date of Decision: 2014-05-08 00:00:00 Before: Sackar J File Number(s): 2012/201234, 2012/203944, 2012/203945
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