Pi v Zhou (No 3)

[2017] NSWCA 224

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Pi v Zhou (No 3) [2017] NSWCA 224
Hearing dates:	24 August 2017
Date of orders:	22 September 2017
Decision date:	22 September 2017
Before:	Payne JA
Decision:	(1) The summons filed on 8 March 2016 is dismissed; (2) Mr Pi to pay the respondents’ costs as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – dismissal of proceedings for failure to pay security for costs ordered by the Court
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act (1970) NSW Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Ballard v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd [2013] NSWCA 82 Fairey v Fairey (No 2) [2000] NSWCA 173 Pi v Zhou (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 16 Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 1644 Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 148 Porter v Gordian Runoff (No 3) [2005] NSWCA 377
Category:	Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:	Guang Hua Pi (Applicant) Jian Cheng Zhou (First respondent) Christine Zhao (Second respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Applicant (self-represented)  Respondents (self-represented)
File Number(s):	2015/355864

Judgment

1. PAYNE JA: By summons dated 8 March 2016 the applicant, Mr Pi, sought an extension of time to appeal from a decision of the primary judge, Adamson J, made on 9 November 2015 dismissing his claim for damages for assault and various other torts against the respondents, Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao: Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 1644.

2. Following a series of aborted applications for judicial review, the present proceedings were commenced by Mr Pi. The respondents sought security for costs and Gleeson JA ordered the applicant to provide security for the respondents’ costs in the sum of $12,000: Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 148.

3. On 15 February 2017, this Court delivered its principal judgment, following a review of Gleeson JA’s orders: Pi v Zhou(No 2) [2017] NSWCA 16. The Court ordered, relevantly, that the applicant provide security for the respondents’ costs by paying into court the sum of $12,000, or by otherwise providing security for that amount in a manner satisfactory to the respondents. Pending that security being provided, the stay of the proceedings which had been ordered by Gleeson JA was continued. The Court ordered security to be provided on or before 5 April 2017.

4. The orders of the Court provided that the matter was listed before a judge of the Court on 10 April 2017 for consequential orders, or, in the event that the security had not been provided, an order for the dismissal of the proceedings.

5. On 10 April 2017, the matter was listed before me. Security for costs had not been provided. There was no appearance by either party. Rather than order the dismissal of the proceedings as had been contemplated by the orders, the parties were given a further specific opportunity to address whether the Court should dismiss the proceedings for failure to pay the security for costs which had been ordered. On 11 April 2017, the parties were notified by the Registrar and invited to make written submissions as follows: