Liu v Resi Ventures Leakes Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Liu v Resi Ventures Leakes Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the plaintiffs, Resi Leakes and GBP, who were applying for further security for costs against the defendants. The plaintiffs, who resided outside of Victoria, were contesting the applicability of rule 62.02(1)(a) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, which relates to security for costs for defendants when the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside of Victoria. The defendants sought an order for security for costs, arguing that the plaintiffs were impecunious and unable to meet a potential adverse costs order.

The court was required to decide whether the circumstances of the case justified an order for security for costs being made, despite the plaintiffs' residence outside of Victoria. The court also needed to consider whether rule 62.02(1)(a) was applicable in light of section 117 of the Constitution Act 1901 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to examine the evidence presented regarding the plaintiffs' financial circumstances and assess whether the plaintiffs' concession regarding their impecuniosity was sufficient to warrant an order for security for costs.

The court found that it was not necessary to decide whether rule 62.02(1)(a) was applicable in the circumstances of the case, as the plaintiffs had conceded that there was a real risk that they would not be able to meet an adverse costs order. The court also considered the evidence presented by the plaintiffs and defendants, which suggested that the plaintiffs were impecunious. Based on the evidence and the plaintiffs' concession, the court found that the circumstances of the case justified an order for security for costs being made. However, the court made an order for security for costs in favour of the second defendant but not the first defendant.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs were to pay $60,000 as security for costs for Resi Leakes and GBP up to and including mediation. The order was made on the basis of the plaintiffs' impecuniosity and the real risk that they would not be able to meet an adverse costs order. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' concession regarding their impecuniosity was sufficient to warrant the order for security for costs.