Johnson v Hone & Anor (No.2)
Case
•
[2025] NSWDC 395
•29 September 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Johnson v Hone & Anor (No.2) [2025] NSWDC 395
[2025] NSWDC 395
29 September 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Johnson v Hone & Anor (No.2) involved the plaintiff, Johnson, and two defendants, Hone and another. The dispute centred on the plaintiff's failure to comply with an order for security for costs, leading to the defendants seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and an order for costs. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to pay the required security for costs, despite being granted two adjournments to do so, warranted the dismissal of his claim. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to the defendants under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the security for costs order, coupled with his departure from the jurisdiction and refusal to provide a full address, justified the dismissal of his claim. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the necessity for parties to provide adequate information. In awarding costs, the court found no issue of principle in granting the defendants a gross sum order for costs in the amount of $85,052.16.
In light of the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and the costs order, the court made orders pursuant to Part 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the Amended Statement of Claim be dismissed. Furthermore, under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs in the gross sum of $85,052.16.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's failure to pay the required security for costs, despite being granted two adjournments to do so, warranted the dismissal of his claim. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded to the defendants under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the security for costs order, coupled with his departure from the jurisdiction and refusal to provide a full address, justified the dismissal of his claim. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the necessity for parties to provide adequate information. In awarding costs, the court found no issue of principle in granting the defendants a gross sum order for costs in the amount of $85,052.16.
In light of the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and the costs order, the court made orders pursuant to Part 42.21(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the Amended Statement of Claim be dismissed. Furthermore, under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs in the gross sum of $85,052.16.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Costs
-
Dismissal of Cause of Action
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
2
Ballard v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd
[2013] NSWCA 82
Johnson v Hone
[2025] NSWDC 319