› Foreign plaintiff with no assets in jurisdiction
› Whether security limited to enforcement costs where no reciprocal enforcement arrangement
› Onus on plaintiff to prove lesser security sufficient
› Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.21
Practice and Procedure
› Costs
› Security for costs
› Cross-claim in substance defensive
› Whether cross-claim impeaches plaintiff's claim
› Undertaking not to pursue cross-claim independently
Practice and Procedure
› Costs
› Security for costs
› Quantum
› Broad brush assessment
› Reduction for duplication and uncertainty
› Payment in tranches
Quick Take
1Where a foreign plaintiff seeks to limit security for costs to the costs of enforcing a judgment in its home jurisdiction, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the process for enforcement, its likely success, and the costs involved; mere proof of substantial assets abroad is insufficient.
2The absence of a reciprocal enforcement arrangement between Australia and the plaintiff's home jurisdiction is a significant discretionary factor favouring the ordering of security for the full costs of the proceedings, not merely enforcement costs.
Case Details
Citation[2025] NSWSC 683
CourtNSWSC
JurisdictionNew South Wales
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.
