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:
Solicitors:
CD Freeman (appellant/first cross-respondent)
D O’Dea (solicitor) (first respondent/second cross-respondent)
J Capsanis (solicitor) (second respondent/cross-appellant)
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:
- Date of Decision:
- 21 December 2023
- Before:
- Lindsay J
- File Number(s):
- 2021/00151823
JUDGMENT
-
On 27 May 2024, the matter came before me in the Court of Appeal referrals list to deal with:
a notice of motion dated 28 March 2024; and
directions for the further conduct of the appeal.
-
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(2) ORDER that caveat number AP793162 be withdrawn forthwith.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.
-
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.
-
On 27 May 2024 I made the following orders:
The first respondent’s notice of motion dated 28 March 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Reasons reserved.
-
These are my reason for making those orders.
Notice of motion
-
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
- AGLC
- Dogra v Dogra [2024] NSWCA 127
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 127
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.