Boros v Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd (No 2)

The appeal concerned the release of moneys paid into court by the appellant, Mr Boros, as security for costs. Mr Boros had succeeded on his appeal, leading to the question of whether certain sums should be retained due to costs orders made in favour of the respondent, Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd, in relation to applications for security for costs and unsuccessful applications to vary and adjourn. The matter was heard by Bell CJ, Basten and Meagher JJA.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the moneys paid into court by Mr Boros as security for costs should be released to him, or if any portion should be retained to satisfy the costs orders made in favour of Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd concerning interlocutory applications.

The Court reasoned that the primary purpose of security for costs is to ensure that a party who is ordered to pay costs has the means to do so. Given that Mr Boros had succeeded on the substantive appeal, the original basis for requiring security for costs had been discharged. The Court further considered that the costs orders in favour of Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd related to specific interlocutory applications and did not, in themselves, create a separate or overriding entitlement to retain the general security for costs that had been posted. The Court concluded that the moneys paid into court by Mr Boros should be released to him.

The Court ordered that the moneys paid into Court by Mr Boros as security for costs be released to him. Furthermore, Pages Property Investments Pty Ltd was ordered to pay Mr Boros’ costs in relation to the argument concerning the release of those moneys.