This Morning Pty Ltd v Melhem [2018] NSWSC 1460

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: This Morning Pty Ltd v Melhem [2018] NSWSC 1460 Hearing dates: 26 September 2018 Date of orders: 26 September 2018 Decision date: 26 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Kunc J Decision: Additional security for costs ordered Catchwords: COSTS - Security for costs - Power to order - Plaintiff fails to make payments in accordance with tranches ordered - Application for additional security – No issue of principle Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) 2014 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: This Morning Pty Ltd (ACN 110 456 605) (Plaintiff)

Tony Melhem (First Defendant) Avril Melhem (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel:

A Bailey (Plaintiff) M Condon SC and P Sharp (Defendants)

Solicitors:

Avondale Law (Plaintiff) William Roberts Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2016/53007 Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. By notice of motion filed on 10 September 2018 the defendants seek an order that the plaintiff provide additional security for the costs of these proceedings. For the reasons which follow, the Court will order that additional security be provided in the amount of $210,000. 2. At today's hearing, Mr A Bailey of Counsel appeared for the plaintiff company. He and his solicitor had only recently been retained. They only had limited instructions, being to apply for an adjournment of the hearing of the defendants' notice of motion. When that adjournment was refused, Mr Bailey remained to put such submissions as he could on the issue of additional security. 3. The sole director and shareholder of the plaintiff, Mr Robert Melhem, was present by audiovisual link from Long Bay where he is currently being held on remand in relation to alleged criminal offences. Because of Mr Bailey's limited instructions, from time to time I permitted Mr Melhem to supplement submissions put on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr Bailey. The defendants did not object to that course. 4. The defendants were represented by Mr M Condon of Senior Counsel and Mr P Sharp of Counsel.