Comlin Holdings Pty Ltd v Metlej Developments Pty Ltd

In the matter of *Comlin Holdings Pty Ltd v Metlej Developments Pty Ltd*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for security for costs made by the respondents against the appellant. The dispute concerned the appellant's ability to satisfy a potential adverse costs order in an appeal it had lodged.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant, a trustee, was likely to be able to meet an adverse costs order, and if not, what form of security would be appropriate. A secondary issue arose regarding the appellant's application to adduce further evidence on appeal, and its potential impact on the costs of the appeal.

Basten JA determined that the appellant, being a trustee, was unlikely to be able to meet an adverse costs order from its own resources. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeal be stayed unless the appellant provided security in the amount of $85,000. This security was to be provided by way of a caveatable interest over a property owned by Mrs Bassil. The Court also directed that the appellant's motion to adduce further evidence be heard before the appeal itself, and reserved liberty to the respondents to apply to increase the security amount should the further evidence be permitted.