Kure v He
Case
•
[2017] NSWSC 1488
•20 October 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kure v He [2017] NSWSC 1488
[2017] NSWSC 1488
20 October 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved a plaintiff, Kure, who resided in Japan and had no assets in Australia. Kure sought an order for security for costs against the defendant, He. The primary dispute centred on whether the court should grant an order for security for costs given the plaintiff's lack of assets in Australia, and if so, whether the security should be limited to the costs associated with registering a costs judgment in Japan. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could be required to provide security for costs when they had no assets in Australia and resided overseas. Additionally, the court had to determine whether, if security was to be ordered, it should be confined to the costs of registering a costs judgment in Japan, as opposed to the full costs of the proceedings in Australia. The onus of proof on these matters was also considered, with the court assessing the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate why security should not be required or should be limited.
The court found that the plaintiff could be required to provide security for costs, despite having no assets in Australia. The court reasoned that the requirement for security was not contingent upon the plaintiff's residence or assets in Australia but rather on the plaintiff's ability to pay the defendant's costs if they were to lose the case. However, the court also held that the security should be limited to the costs of registering a costs judgment in Japan. This decision was based on the principle that the plaintiff should not be burdened with costs beyond what was necessary to enforce a potential judgment in their country of residence. The court placed the onus of proof on the plaintiff to show why security should not be required or should be limited, which Kure failed to do.
The final orders of the court required Kure to provide security for the costs of registering a costs judgment in Japan. The court emphasised that this amount was deemed sufficient to protect He's interests in the event of a costs order in Kure's favour.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could be required to provide security for costs when they had no assets in Australia and resided overseas. Additionally, the court had to determine whether, if security was to be ordered, it should be confined to the costs of registering a costs judgment in Japan, as opposed to the full costs of the proceedings in Australia. The onus of proof on these matters was also considered, with the court assessing the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate why security should not be required or should be limited.
The court found that the plaintiff could be required to provide security for costs, despite having no assets in Australia. The court reasoned that the requirement for security was not contingent upon the plaintiff's residence or assets in Australia but rather on the plaintiff's ability to pay the defendant's costs if they were to lose the case. However, the court also held that the security should be limited to the costs of registering a costs judgment in Japan. This decision was based on the principle that the plaintiff should not be burdened with costs beyond what was necessary to enforce a potential judgment in their country of residence. The court placed the onus of proof on the plaintiff to show why security should not be required or should be limited, which Kure failed to do.
The final orders of the court required Kure to provide security for the costs of registering a costs judgment in Japan. The court emphasised that this amount was deemed sufficient to protect He's interests in the event of a costs order in Kure's favour.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Security for Costs
-
Onus of Proof
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Kure v He [2017] NSWSC 1488
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Maxim's Caterers Ltd v Magnona Pty Ltd (No 1)
[2010] FCA 450
Cameron Donald-Oates v Megan Lea Mitchell Donald
[2011] NSWSC 1391