Mabrouk Minerals Pty Ltd v Mabrouk Holdings Ltd

[2008] WASC 132

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Party outside the jurisdiction
4. › Whether party has assets within jurisdiction capable of meeting order for costs
5. › Relevance of nature of assets in the jurisdiction
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 25 r 2
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Security for costs sought against counterclaimant
4. › Whether counterclaim defensive in nature
5. › Whether security will be ordered where claimant responding to attack
6. › Whether counterclaimant forced to sue by self-help remedy employed by defendant to counterclaim
7. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 25 rr 2, 4

Quick Take

Shares held by a foreign company in an Australian company do not constitute sufficient assets within the jurisdiction to defeat an application for security for costs where the shares can readily be encumbered or disposed of by transactions outside the jurisdiction and no proposal has been advanced to ensure their availability. A counterclaim seeking substantive relief by way of damages and equitable compensation against parties who are not parties to the original action is offensive, not defensive, even where the underlying dispute concerns the same agreement.