Combined Property Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Pullenvale Estates Pty Ltd

[2001] QSC 76

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Corporations
2. › Security for costs
3. › Section 1335 Corporations Law
4. › Threshold requirement
5. › Reason to believe plaintiff unable to pay costs
6. › Whether compliance with regulatory licensing requirements displaces need to provide current financial information
1. Corporations
2. › Security for costs
3. › Section 1335 Corporations Law
4. › Exercise of discretion
5. › Relevant factors
6. › Bona fide claim
7. › Prospects of success
8. › Whether proceedings would be frustrated
9. › Whether want of means caused by defendant's conduct
10. › Whether those who benefit from action are impecunious
11. › Delay in seeking security
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Corporate plaintiff
4. › Adequacy of evidence of financial position
5. › Reliance on regulatory licensing compliance
6. › Whether licensing requirements displace need for current financial information

Quick Take

A corporate plaintiff's compliance with regulatory licensing requirements (such as BSA licensing in Queensland) does not displace the need to provide current financial information about its trading and net asset position when security for costs is sought under s 1335 of the Corporations Law. A plaintiff that relies solely on licensing compliance without providing current financial information risks an adverse inference on the threshold question.