Philips Electronics Australia Pty. Ltd. v Matthews

(2002) 54 NSWLR 598; [2002] NSWCA 157

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › District Court
4. › Power to order stay until security provided
5. › Whether general stay power under s 156(1) available outside categories in Part 40 r 1(2)
6. › Whether rules prescribing security categories displace statutory stay power
7. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 156, 161
8. › District Court Rules, Pt 40 r 1
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Stay of proceedings
3. › Power to stay on terms
4. › Scope of statutory stay power
5. › Whether stay conditional on provision of security for costs
6. › Whether abuse of process required as precondition
7. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 156(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Relationship between statute and subordinate legislation
3. › Whether rules made under enabling Act limit general statutory power
4. › Whether specific rule-making power exhausts general grant of power
5. › Anthony Hordern principle
6. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), ss 156, 161(2)(j)

Quick Take

The District Court has power under s 156(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) to stay proceedings until security for costs is provided, even where the plaintiff does not fall within the categories in Part 40 r 1(2) of the District Court Rules. However, this power should only be exercised where a strong case is made out that a stay is necessary in the interests of justice. It is not necessary to establish that the proceedings are an abuse of process. The court cannot make a positive order for security under s 156(1), only a conditional stay.