Nostro Claimco Pty Ltd v Titus Tekform Pty Ltd

[2026] NSWSC 445

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. APPEAL — interlocutory appeal from Local Court to Supreme Court — order for provision of security for costs — plaintiff proffered deed poll by party with commercial interest in claim, expressed in favour of defendant — Local Court ordered security on basis that defendant could not enforce deed poll — conceded error — whether leave should be granted — whether error material — re-exercise of discretion — appeal allowed and security ordered in terms proffered by plaintiff

Quick Take

The Court held that the Local Court committed material error by concluding that a deed poll could not be enforced by the named beneficiary (Titus Tekform) because it was not a signatory, and that this error was material to the evaluative conclusion that the proffered security was inadequate. On re-exercising the discretion, the Court accepted an uncapped deed poll from a well-capitalised trustee (AMAL), supplemented by $20,000 paid into court to cover enforcement costs, as adequate security — in lieu of the $150,000 cash/bank guarantee ordered below. The Court also expressed strong doubt that security for costs in a Local Court matter could appropriately exceed the court's jurisdictional limit of $100,000, emphasising that s 60 of the Civil Procedure Act requires proportionality between costs and the amount at stake, and that grossly inflated costs estimates may lead to no security being ordered at all.