Hague v Cordiner (No. 2)

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Hague v Cordiner (No. 2) [2020] NSWDC 23
Hearing dates:	6 and 13 February 2020
Date of orders:	13 February 2020
Decision date:	24 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	See [39]
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – security for costs – appropriate forms of security – whether a cryptocurrency investment account is a sufficiently secure asset – whether an undertaking to the court not to dispose of an asset may be a satisfactory form of security – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.21
Cases Cited:	Court of Appeal, Registrar of v Maniam (No 1) (1991) 25 NSWLR 459 East Grace Corporation v Xing (No 1) [2005] FCA 219 Johnston v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 17 Killen v Lane [1983] 1 NSWLR 171 Kostov v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1289 KT v Google LLC (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 14 Lin v Borrowdale [2011] NSWCA 65 Mohareb v Palmer [2017] NSWCA 281 Noicos v Dawson [2019] FCA 2197 Scholefield Goodman (Australia) Pty Limited v Rutkowski [2018] NSWSC 19 Stapleton v Fairfax Media Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1418 Turner v NSW Forensic & Analytical Science Service [2017] NSWCATAD 181
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Plaintiff: Nathan Hague Defendant: Sarah Louise Cordiner
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr T Senior Defendant: Mr B Goldsmith (solicitor)   Solicitors: Plaintiff: Keleher Lawyers Defendant: Goldsmiths Lawyers
File Number(s):	2019/254138
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

The application before the court

1. The defendant, by notice of motion filed on 13 November 2019, seeks an order for security for costs against the plaintiff pursuant to r 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”), on the basis that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Australia and/or has misstated his address in Australia with intent to deceive.

Issues not in dispute

2. The plaintiff denies he has misstated his address in Australia, but acknowledges that he is ordinarily resident outside Australia and submits the issue is the quantum and form of the security to be given.

3. As to quantum, Mr Keleher (for the defendant) agrees with Mr Goldsmith’s estimate that the costs of this trial (for the defendant) will be between $45,000 and $58,000, of which 75% will be recoverable on assessment unless an indemnity costs order is made. These may seem to be small sums when compared to estimates for costs in superior courts, but it is a realistic sum given the economies of scale possible in a specialist list where the emphasis is on sorting out problems as they arise, with the result that solicitors can, and do, appear on behalf of their clients not only on interlocutory applications but also at the trial (although Mr Goldsmith states that he will be briefing counsel for the trial on this occasion).

4. The parties also agreed with the proposal that a reasonable sum for security for costs would be $20,000.

The issue…