Corcoran v Far [2018] NSWSC 1056

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Corcoran v Far [2018] NSWSC 1056 Hearing dates: 29 June 2018 Date of orders: 12 July 2018 Decision date: 12 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison AsJ Decision: The Court orders that:

(1) The defendant's notice of motion filed 25 May 2018 is dismissed.

(2) The plaintiff's amended summons filed 7 February 2018 is listed for directions before the Registrar at 9.30 am on Friday 27 July 2018.

(3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on an ordinary basis. Catchwords: Costs – security for costs – power to order – no point in principle Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 55 and 83 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 183 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), ss 3, 10, 13 90 and 187 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), 42.21 and 50.8 Cases Cited: Corcoran v Far [2017] NSWCATAP 16 Corcoran v Far [2017] NSWCATCD 40 Corcoran v Far [2018] NSWCATAP 13 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Aaron Corcoran (Plaintiff) Peter Far (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: L Ang (Defendant)

Self Represented: A Corcoran (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2018/38799 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: By notice of motion filed 25 May 2018, the defendant seeks, firstly, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), an order that the plaintiff provide security for the defendant's costs up to and including the hearing date in these proceedings in the sum of $25,000, or such other amount as the Court deems fit, within 28 days; and secondly, an order that the proceedings be stayed for as long as security is not provided. 2. During oral submissions, the defendant's counsel submitted that $7,000 to $10,000 would be an appropriate sum for security for costs, being an estimate of the defendant's legal costs that will be expended at the hearing. 3. The plaintiff is Aaron Cameron. The defendant is Peter Far. Neither party relied upon affidavit evidence. The plaintiff was self represented. The defendant was represented by Mr Ang of counsel.