J M Properties Pty Ltd v Strata Corporation No 13975 Inc

In the matter of J M Properties Pty Ltd v Strata Corporation No 13975 Inc, the appellant, a trustee company, appealed against two decisions of a Judge of the District Court. The first, third, fourth, and sixth respondents applied for security for costs on the appeals. The court was required to determine whether security for costs should be ordered and whether special circumstances existed. The appellant company was impecunious, and there was inadequate disclosure of its financial position. The court also had to consider whether the orders for security would operate as an oppression on the appellant.

The court found that special circumstances existed and ordered security for costs in favour of the respondents. The court exercised its discretion under SCR 95.13(b) and s 1335 of the Corporations Act. The court considered the principles relevant in determining whether security for costs should be given, including the impecuniosity of the appellant, the timing of the application for security, the conduct of the parties, the bona fides of the appellant, the appellant’s prospects of success, and whether the application for security was being used to stultify or oppress the appellant’s claim. The court concluded that there were grounds to order security for costs, and it ordered the appellant to give security for the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $50,000 and for the third, fourth, and sixth respondents of $30,000.

The court considered the impecuniosity of the appellant and the consequences of that to the respondents. The court found that the appellant was impecunious and that the consequences of that to the respondents were significant. The court also considered the conduct of the parties, the bona fides of the appellant, and the appellant’s prospects of success on appeal. The court found that the appellant had acted in a manner that was not in the best interests of the respondents and that the appellant’s prospects of success on appeal were not strong. The court concluded that there were grounds to order security for costs and that the orders should be made pursuant to SCR 95.13 and s 1335 of the Corporations Act.

The court ordered that the appellant give security for the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $50,000 and for the third, fourth, and sixth respondents of $30,000. The court also heard the parties as to the form of the security.