Nanosecond Corporation Pty Ltd v Glen Carron Pty Ltd

Nanosecond Corporation Pty Ltd and another, as appellants, appealed against the decision of Doyle J who had dismissed their claims against Glen Carron Pty Ltd and another, as respondents. The primary judge had dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in full and made orders as to costs. The appeal was dismissed and the plaintiffs were ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs of the appeal. The appeal raised issues as to the exercise of the Court’s discretion under rule 295(1)(g) of the Supreme Court Rules in relation to an order for security for costs. The Court held that the plaintiffs had no real prospect of being able to pay an order for costs if made against them, and that they had no assets of any value. The Court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiffs to provide security for the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

The Court held that the plaintiffs’ conduct during the trial, and their reliance on edited versions of the recordings, were significant factors in the exercise of the Court’s discretion. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ conduct had contributed to the length of the trial and had caused significant expense to the defendants. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ conduct demonstrated a lack of perception or insight on their part, and a blinkered and uncompromising attitude in their conduct and dealings with others. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ conduct was a significant factor in the exercise of the Court’s discretion to order security for costs.