Corbett v Nguyen

In the matter of Corbett v Nguyen, the plaintiff, Corbett, pursued legal action against Nguyen in an Australian court. The dispute involved allegations of contract breaches and related claims. Corbett sought an order for security for costs from Nguyen, arguing that the defendant was ordinarily resident in both Vietnam and Australia, and that there was an extreme difficulty in enforcing a costs order in Vietnam. Nguyen, on the other hand, argued that Corbett had sufficient assets in Australia to meet any costs order and that Corbett's commercial probity was not in question. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's residence in Vietnam, coupled with the difficulty in enforcing a costs order there, justified the order for security for costs. Additionally, the court considered whether Corbett's assets in Australia were sufficient to cover any potential costs order and whether Corbett's commercial probity was questionable. The court also examined the defendant's delay in bringing the motion for security for costs.

The court found that Corbett's dual residency did not automatically justify an order for security for costs, and the extreme difficulty in enforcing a costs order in Vietnam was not sufficient to warrant such an order without further evidence. The court emphasised that Corbett had sufficient assets in Australia to cover any potential costs order, and there was no evidence to suggest that Corbett was lacking in commercial probity. The court also noted the defendant's delay in bringing the motion, which was a relevant factor in its decision. Given these considerations, the court refused the application for security for costs.

The final orders of the court were that the application for security for costs was dismissed. The court did not grant the plaintiff's request for an order requiring the defendant to provide security for costs, finding that the conditions for such an order were not met. The court's decision hinged on the plaintiff's ability to meet costs from Australian assets, the lack of evidence regarding the plaintiff's commercial probity, and the defendant's delay in bringing the motion. The case underscores the importance of demonstrating significant difficulty in enforcing a costs order in another jurisdiction and the need for a balanced consideration of all relevant factors in security for costs applications.