Chartspike Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Chahoud

Case [2001] NSWSC 585


CITATION: Chartspike Pty Ltd v Chahoud [2001] NSWSC 585
CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20371/97
HEARING DATE(S): 03/07/01
JUDGMENT DATE:
3 July 2001

PARTIES :


Chartspike Pty Ltd (In liq) (P)
Michael Chahoud (D)
JUDGMENT OF: Young CJ in Eq
COUNSEL : J Svehla (P)
G Curtin (D)
SOLICITORS: Baker & McKenzie (P)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (D)
CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS [23]- Security for costs- Plaintiff insolvent company in liquidation- Liquidator entered into funding arrangement- Arrangement not giving adequate protection to defendant- Order for security made. PROCEDURE [668]- Security for costs- Plaintiff company insolvent and in liquidation- Liquidator entered into funding arrangement- Arrangement not giving adequate protection to defendant- Order for security made.
DECISION: Order made.


THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in Eq

TUESDAY 3 JULY 2001

20371/97 - CHARTSPIKE PTY LTD (IN LIQ) v CHAHOUD

JUDGMENT

1    HIS HONOUR: This is an application for security for costs in an action in the Professional Negligence list. The plaintiff is a company in liquidation, which is insolvent. The defendant is its former solicitor. The estimate of the hearing time is ten days and omitting consideration of costs up to date it is conceded that the costs of the hearing would be about $120,000, at least on the part of the defendant.

2    The liquidator has entered into a funding agreement with a company called Insolvency Management Fund Pty Limited which appears to be a company connected with a firm of solicitors called The Walker Law Group. The funding agreement is Ex DX01 before the court and it is in a very strange form. Clause 11.2 enables the funder to terminate the agreement at any time and if that happens, then it is liable for costs incurred up to that date and liable for any adverse costs orders relating to costs incurred until termination.

3    Clause 3 deals with indemnities to the liquidator as against adverse costs orders and provides the liquidator and the company an indemnity in respect of any adverse costs order. Clause 3.2 then indicates that the funder will obtain a guarantee from the Hong Kong Bank of Australia up to $60,000 on signing of the funding agreement and a further $60,000 prior to the hearing of the proceedings commencing.

4 I do not consider that this is much comfort to the defendant as it may well be argued that if the liquidator and the company have not got the assets to meet an adverse costs order then there would be difficulty in enforcing the indemnity. The funder is not an insurer so the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 providing for access to the insurer would not kick in.

5    The situation is that the plaintiff is a company which is insolvent. It is contracted to have the liquidation funded by a third party, in return for that the third party receiving a share of the verdict. In such a circumstance it is appropriate that the third party bear part of the risk. The costs of a ten day hearing are estimated at about $120,000 and it seems to me I should make an order for $60,000 in the first instance and as the case gets closer to hearing there can be liberty to apply to increase that amount.

6    Accordingly, the court orders that the plaintiff provide security for costs to the defendant in the sum of $60,000. Such security may be made by bank guarantee or in such other form as is acceptable to the defendant's solicitors or to a Registrar. If that security is not provided by 3 August 2001 then the proceedings are stayed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the motion. The matter is stood over to the next available Professional Negligence list directions hearing.

      *****************
Last Modified: 07/13/2001
Details
AGLC
Chartspike Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Chahoud [2001] NSWSC 585
Case
[2001] NSWSC 585
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chartspike Pty Ltd, an insolvent company in liquidation, was the plaintiff in a legal dispute against Chahoud, the defendant. The case before the court was to determine whether the liquidator of Chartspike, who had entered into a funding arrangement with a third party, had provided adequate protection to the defendant. The central issue was whether the funding arrangement was sufficient to secure the defendant's costs in the event of an unfavourable outcome for Chahoud. The court had to decide whether the security provided by the liquidator was adequate under the Corporations Act 2001.

The court examined the terms of the funding arrangement and the provisions of the Corporations Act regarding security for costs. It considered whether the liquidator had acted within their powers and whether the arrangement provided reasonable protection to Chahoud. The court also looked at the potential financial implications for Chahoud if the arrangement was not deemed adequate. After careful consideration, the court found that the funding arrangement did not provide adequate protection to the defendant. Consequently, the court ordered Chartspike's liquidator to provide additional security for Chahoud's costs.

The court's decision was based on the need to ensure that defendants in litigation are adequately protected against the financial risks posed by insolvent plaintiffs. By ordering additional security, the court aimed to balance the interests of both parties and uphold the principles of fairness and justice in the legal process. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of ensuring that liquidators of insolvent companies take all necessary steps to protect the rights of defendants in litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.