Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd

In the matter of Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Jafari, sought security for costs from the defendant, 23 Developments Pty Ltd, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, who had initiated legal proceedings against the defendant, applied for an order to secure the defendant's liability for the plaintiff's costs should the plaintiff's proposed appeal be unsuccessful. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had the financial capacity to pay the security, and the plaintiff, being impecunious, was unable to fund the appeal without security. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff had delayed in making the application until after most of the defendant's costs had been incurred, and that the proposed appeal was not arguable.

The court considered the relevant legal principles governing security for costs, including the factors that the court must take into account when deciding whether to grant an order for security. The court noted that the plaintiff's delay in making the application was a relevant factor, but that it was not necessarily fatal to the application. The court also considered the strength of the proposed appeal and whether the plaintiff was genuinely impecunious. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for security, and ordered the defendant to pay security in the sum of $35,000.

The court emphasised that the amount of security ordered was based on the defendant's financial capacity and the plaintiff's inability to fund the appeal without security. The court also noted that the defendant's delay in opposing the application and the strength of the proposed appeal were relevant factors that supported the plaintiff's application. The court considered it appropriate to order security in the sum of $35,000, given the defendant's financial capacity and the plaintiff's genuine inability to fund the appeal without security. The court did not make any orders as to costs.

In summary, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for security for costs, despite the delay in making the application and the defendant's opposition. The court ordered the defendant to pay security in the sum of $35,000, taking into account the defendant's financial capacity and the plaintiff's genuine impecuniousness. The court did not make any orders as to costs.