Interslice Pty Ltd v CCA Investments Bass Hill Pty Ltd

In *Interslice Pty Ltd v CCA Investments Bass Hill Pty Ltd*, heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, the appellant, Interslice Pty Ltd, sought to appeal a decision. The respondent, CCA Investments Bass Hill Pty Ltd, applied for security for its costs of the appeal. The central dispute concerned the quantum of security to be provided by the appellant, with the respondent arguing for a higher amount and the appellant contending that the requested sum was excessive and unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before Gleeson JA was to determine the appropriate amount of security for costs to be ordered under section 1335 of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) and section 60 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW). This involved assessing competing estimates of the parties' actual costs and considering whether the quantum of security sought was proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues on appeal, applying the principle of proportionality.

Gleeson JA reasoned that while the respondent was entitled to security, the amount sought by the respondent was not justified by the evidence presented. The court considered the competing solicitor's estimates of actual costs and applied the proportionality principle, concluding that a lesser amount than that initially sought by the respondent was appropriate. The court also ordered that the security be paid into court and that the proceedings be stayed in the event of non-compliance. The costs of the specific motion were to be each party's costs in the cause.