Dogra v Dogra

Case [2024] NSWCA 127


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Dogra v Dogra [2024] NSWCA 127
Hearing dates: 27 May 2024
Date of orders: 27 May 2024
Decision date: 27 May 2024
Before: Payne JA
Decision:

The first respondent’s notice of motion dated 28 March 2024 is dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

COSTS – Security for costs – Relevant factors – Impecuniosity – no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 1.11, 51.50

Cases Cited:

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

Hastings v Hasting [2009] NSWCA 294

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28

PrestonvHarbour Pacific UnderwritingManagement Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 247

Saba vNationalAustralia Bank Ltd [1999] NSWCA 93

Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 143; [2004] NSWCA 136

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Aruna Dogra (appellant)
Mamta Dogra (first respondent)
Kapil Dogra (second respondent/cross appellant)
Representation:

Counsel:
CD Freeman (appellant/first cross-respondent)
D O’Dea (solicitor) (first respondent/second cross-respondent)
J Capsanis (solicitor) (second respondent/cross-appellant)

Solicitors:
Goodwin & Co Lawyers (appellant/first cross-respondent)
O’Dea Lawyers (first respondent/second cross-respondent)
JP Capsanis & Co Lawyers (second respondent/cross-appellant)
File Number(s): 2024/8811
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

[2023] NSWSC 1642

Date of Decision:
21 December 2023
Before:
Lindsay J
File Number(s):
2021/00151823

JUDGMENT

  1. On 27 May 2024, the matter came before me in the Court of Appeal referrals list to deal with:

  1. a notice of motion dated 28 March 2024; and

  2. directions for the further conduct of the appeal.

  1. Before the primary judge, Lindsay J, the appellant, Aruna Dogra, claimed a beneficial entitlement to the former matrimonial home of her son, the second respondent, and his former wife, Mamta Dogra, who is the first respondent. On 21 December 2023, Lindsay J rejected the appellant’s claim and made the following orders [2023] NSWSC 1642:

(1)    DECLARE that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the land contained in Certificate of Title folio identifier 16/18644 and known as XXXX Crescent, Hurstville.

(2)    ORDER that caveat number AP793162 be withdrawn forthwith.

(3)    ORDER that the plaintiff and the second defendant pay the first defendant’s costs of these proceedings.

(4)    NOTE that no orders are made as to the costs of the plaintiff and the second defendant to the intent that they each pay or bear their own costs.

  1. A notice of intention to appeal was filed on 28 December 2023. A notice of appeal was filed on 20 March 2024. The second respondent filed a notice of cross appeal on 21 March 2024.

  2. On 27 May 2024 I made the following orders:

  1. The first respondent’s notice of motion dated 28 March 2024 is dismissed with costs.

  2. Reasons reserved.

  1. These are my reason for making those orders.

Notice of motion

  1. On 28 March 2024, the first respondent filed a notice of motion seeking dismissal of the appeal (proposed order…

Continue reading Dogra v Dogra

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dogra v Dogra [2024] NSWCA 127
Case
[2024] NSWCA 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dogra v Dogra*, the first respondent sought security for costs against the appellant. The dispute concerned an application for security for costs, with the first respondent arguing that the appellant's impecuniosity warranted such an order. The matter came before Payne JA of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the first respondent's application for security for costs, considering the appellant's financial position. The Court was required to assess the relevant factors in determining whether to order security for costs, particularly in circumstances where impecuniosity was raised as a ground.

Payne JA dismissed the first respondent's application. The Court applied the established legal principles regarding security for costs, which generally require a demonstrable risk that a party will be unable to pay the costs of the other party if unsuccessful. While impecuniosity can be a relevant factor, it is not determinative in itself and must be considered alongside other circumstances. In this instance, the Court found that the threshold for ordering security for costs had not been met.

Consequently, the first respondent's notice of motion dated 28 March 2024 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The first respondent’s notice of motion dated 28 March 2024 is dismissed with costs.

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.