Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 48 Hearing dates: 25 February 2022 Date of orders: 25 February 2022 Decision date: 25 February 2022 Before: Brereton JA Decision: 1. The appellant be released from its obligation to provide security to the respondent for the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
2. The respondent forthwith return to the appellant or its nominated bankers both of the originals of the guarantees provided in accordance with the orders of 6 August 2019 and 25 November 2019, being guarantees numbered 55541928 and 555615578, for cancellation, and do all things and execute all documents necessary in order to give effect thereto.
3. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the motion of 13 January 2022 on the ordinary basis.
4. The Court declines to make an order for interim payment.
Catchwords: COSTS — Security for costs — On appeal – Security for costs of appeal provided by appellant in form of bank guarantee – Terms of bank guarantee required appellant to pay costs to respondent “in the event that its appeal is unsuccessful and it is required to do so by Court Order” – where interlocutory costs orders made against appellant – where appellant substantially successful in appeal – Finding that proceedings not “unsuccessful” and guarantee not engaged – Order that security be released
COSTS — Security for costs — Security provided in form of bank guarantee — Held, costs ancillary to administering bank guarantee not recoverable in circumstances where guarantee was an indulgence for convenience of party providing security
Cases Cited: Category: Consequential orders Parties: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd (Appellant)
John Forster Emmott (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Michael Wilson (in person) (Appellant)
J Baird (Respondent)
Duggan Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/103863; 2019/170998 Publication restriction: N/A Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity Division, Commercial List
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 8 March 2019
- Before:
- Ball J
- File Number(s):
- 2016/34380
Judgment (ex tempore)
-
HIS HONOUR: On 6 August 2019, the respondent Mr Emmott having filed a motion for security for costs, the Registrar by consent made orders as follows:
2. The security referred to in order 1 is to be provided by bank guarantee, in the form annexed hereto and marked "A", to be served on the Respondent within 30 days of the date of these orders.“1. The Appellant/Applicant provide the Respondent with security in the sum of $27,500.00 in respect of the Respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal (proceedings no. 2019/170998) and the appeal (proceedings no. 2019/103863).
3. If the security referred to in order 1 above is not provided in accordance with order 2, proceedings no. 2019/170998 and no. 2019/103863 are stayed without further order unless and until the security is provided.
The Court notes the agreement between the parties as follows:-
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 48
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the conditions for the bank guarantees to be called upon had been met. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the appellant's appeal was "unsuccessful" within the meaning of the guarantee, and if the respondent was entitled to recover costs related to the administration of the bank guarantee.
Brereton JA found that the appellant had been substantially successful in its appeal, and therefore, the condition that the appeal be "unsuccessful" was not satisfied. Consequently, the bank guarantees were not engaged, and the appellant was entitled to their release. The Court also held that costs ancillary to the administration of the bank guarantee were not recoverable in these circumstances, as the guarantee was provided as an indulgence for the convenience of the appellant. The Court ordered the release of the bank guarantees and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant be released from its obligation to provide security to the respondent for the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
2. The respondent forthwith return to the appellant or its nominated bankers both of the originals of the guarantees provided in accordance with the orders of 6 August 2019 and 25 November 2019, being guarantees numbered 55541928 and 555615578, for cancellation, and do all things and execute all documents necessary in order to give effect thereto.
3. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the motion of 13 January 2022 on the ordinary basis.
4. The Court declines to make an order for interim payment.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.