BBC NOMINEES (WA) PTY LTD -v- YANGEBUP DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD [2008] WASC 81
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WASC 81 | |
| 13/05/2008 | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1247/2008 | 1 MAY 2008 | |
| Coram: | BEECH J | 1/05/08 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Security for costs ordered | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BBC NOMINEES (WA) PTY LTD as Trustee for MARKOVICH FAMILY TRUST YANGEBUP DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure- Security for costs Plaintiff trustee company Whether power enlivened Threshold requirement Merits of plaintiff's claim Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335 |
Case References: | Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1279; (2006) 155 FCR 181 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1992) 10 ACLC 525 Blackbird Entertainment Pty Ltd v I O Research Pty Ltd (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980297, 2 June 1998) Carey-Hazell v Getz Brothers & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1334 Citi Nominees Pty Ltd v Fenny [2006] WASC 97 Expectation Pty Ltd v Pinnacle VRB Ltd (2002) WASCA 160 Intercraft Cabinets Pty Ltd v Sampas Pty Ltd (1997) 18 WAR 306 Kheng v Secola (2001) WASCA 3 Lagarna Pty Ltd v Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corporation (Australia) Ltd [1995] 1 VR 150 Laundry Coin-Wash Nominees Pty Ltd v Dunlop Olympic Ltd (1985) 7 ATPR 40-584 Meni's Tailoring & Alterations Pty Ltd v Jeanswest Corporation Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1108 Second Lenbourne Pty Ltd v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 486 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
YANGEBUP DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure- Security for costs - Plaintiff trustee company - Whether power enlivened - Threshold requirement - Merits of plaintiff's claim - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335
Result:
Security for costs ordered
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr D K Barker
Defendant : Mr G R Dean
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Chalmers Legal Studio
Defendant : Dean & Rowick
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1279; (2006) 155 FCR 181
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1992) 10 ACLC 525
Blackbird Entertainment Pty Ltd v I O Research Pty Ltd (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980297, 2 June 1998)
Carey-Hazell v Getz Brothers & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1334
Citi Nominees Pty Ltd v Fenny [2006] WASC 97
Expectation Pty Ltd v Pinnacle VRB Ltd (2002) WASCA 160
Intercraft Cabinets Pty Ltd v Sampas Pty Ltd (1997) 18 WAR 306
Kheng v Secola (2001) WASCA 3
Lagarna Pty Ltd v Bridge Wholesale Acceptance…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read BBC Nominees (WA) Pty Ltd v Yangebup Developments Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2008] WASC 81
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of BBC Nominees (WA) Pty Ltd versus Yangebup Developments Pty Ltd, the court was asked to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for security for costs from the defendant. The plaintiff, a trustee company, sought this order under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (WA). The dispute centred on the threshold requirement for granting such orders and whether the merits of the plaintiff's claim played a role in the decision.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory power to order security for costs was activated in this case. The court needed to assess if the plaintiff met the threshold criteria for such an order and whether the merits of the plaintiff's claim were relevant to the decision. The court had to consider the statutory provisions and any relevant case law to determine if the plaintiff's circumstances justified the granting of the order.
The court found that the statutory power to order security for costs was indeed triggered in this instance. It concluded that the plaintiff met the threshold requirement and that the merits of the plaintiff's claim could be taken into account. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to provide security for the plaintiff's costs.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory power to order security for costs was activated in this case. The court needed to assess if the plaintiff met the threshold criteria for such an order and whether the merits of the plaintiff's claim were relevant to the decision. The court had to consider the statutory provisions and any relevant case law to determine if the plaintiff's circumstances justified the granting of the order.
The court found that the statutory power to order security for costs was indeed triggered in this instance. It concluded that the plaintiff met the threshold requirement and that the merits of the plaintiff's claim could be taken into account. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to provide security for the plaintiff's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Security for costs ordered
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.