COSTS — Security for costs — Relevant factors — Where first plaintiff’s place of residence is out of jurisdiction — Where second plaintiff is an impecunious corporate trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund
COSTS — Security for costs — Quantum and form — Where amount claimed is disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues and solicitor’s estimate of costs is unrealistic
Quick Take
1Where a plaintiff resides outside Australia and there is no evidence that a costs order would be as readily enforceable in the plaintiff's country of residence as in New South Wales, that absence of evidence is a factor weighing in favour of ordering security for costs under UCPR r 42.21.
2An order for security for costs against an impecunious corporate trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund may be refused where such an order would stifle the proceedings, even though the jurisdictional threshold under r 42.21(1)(d) is met.
3A solicitor's estimate of costs that is disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, or that contains errors suggesting it was not prepared specifically for the proceedings, will be substantially discounted by the court when fixing the quantum of security on a broad-brush basis.
