DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.404 - Application for security for costs

Ms Annette Maglovski
v
Neirbo Real Estate Pty Ltd T/A Homes Group Estate Agents
(U2017/9547)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 6 NOVEMBER 2017

Application for security for costs; application dismissed.

[1] Further to my decision delivered ex tempore and recorded in transcript on 6 November 2017, as the Respondent did not wish to press its security for costs application, the application for security for costs is dismissed.

[2] The hearing of the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent is otherwise adjourned to allow the Respondent to seek legal advice and representation, and will be set down for hearing at a date to be fixed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr B Milivojevic on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr M O’Brien on behalf of Neirbo Real Estate Pty Ltd T/A Home Group Estate Agents.

Hearing details:

2017.

Melbourne.

6 November.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves a dispute between Ms Annette Maglovski and Neirbo Real Estate Pty Ltd, trading as Homes Group Estate Agents. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Ms Maglovski sought security for costs in relation to a claim she had lodged against the defendant for alleged breaches of the Australian Consumer Law and the Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (Qld). The defendant opposed the application for security for costs, arguing that the applicant's claim was frivolous and vexatious.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant had demonstrated that she was likely to be unable to meet a costs order if the defendant succeeded in their opposition to the application for security for costs. The court was required to consider the merits of the applicant's claim, the conduct of the parties, and whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in the underlying proceeding. The court also had to determine whether the applicant's claim was frivolous or vexatious, as these factors would influence the decision on the application for security for costs.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a likelihood of being unable to meet a costs order if the defendant succeeded in their opposition. The court considered that the applicant's claim had some merit and that there was a reasonable prospect of success on the merits. The court also found that the applicant's conduct did not warrant a finding that the claim was frivolous or vexatious. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for security for costs. The court emphasised that its decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and did not set a precedent for future cases.

Ms Annette Maglovski v Neirbo Real Estate Pty Ltd T/A Homes Group Estate Agents

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established