Plyable Pty Ltd v Go Gecko (Franchise) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2016] QSC 249
•31 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Plyable Pty Ltd v Go Gecko (Franchise) Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 249
[2016] QSC 249
31 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Plyable Pty Ltd v Go Gecko (Franchise) Pty Ltd, the first defendant applied for security for costs against the second plaintiff. The application was made pursuant to rule 670 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and the court had to determine if it was appropriate for a natural person to provide security in these circumstances. The court also had to consider whether the justice of the case supported a security for costs order, given the second plaintiff's statements that revealed an oppressive attitude towards litigation. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the defendants' evidence was cogent and supported the quantum of costs claimed, as the plaintiffs had contested the estimates provided by the defendants.
The court considered several factors in its decision, including the impecuniosity of the plaintiffs, the unpaid costs from prior proceedings, and the personal undertaking offered by the second plaintiff to pay costs. The court found that the second plaintiff's statements indicated an oppressive attitude towards litigation, which was a relevant consideration in exercising its discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendants' evidence was cogent and supported the quantum of costs claimed, despite the plaintiffs' material contesting those estimates. The court ultimately decided that the plaintiffs should provide security for the defendants' costs.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs provide security for the first defendant's costs in the amount of $205,621.01 by a specified deadline. The security could be provided either by an irrevocable bank guarantee or by a payment into court. Additionally, the court ordered that the first plaintiff provide security for the second, third, and eighth defendants' costs in the same amount. The security could also be provided in the form of a bank guarantee or by a payment into court. The parties were granted liberty to apply in relation to the terms of these orders upon giving the required notice to the other parties.
The court considered several factors in its decision, including the impecuniosity of the plaintiffs, the unpaid costs from prior proceedings, and the personal undertaking offered by the second plaintiff to pay costs. The court found that the second plaintiff's statements indicated an oppressive attitude towards litigation, which was a relevant consideration in exercising its discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendants' evidence was cogent and supported the quantum of costs claimed, despite the plaintiffs' material contesting those estimates. The court ultimately decided that the plaintiffs should provide security for the defendants' costs.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs provide security for the first defendant's costs in the amount of $205,621.01 by a specified deadline. The security could be provided either by an irrevocable bank guarantee or by a payment into court. Additionally, the court ordered that the first plaintiff provide security for the second, third, and eighth defendants' costs in the same amount. The security could also be provided in the form of a bank guarantee or by a payment into court. The parties were granted liberty to apply in relation to the terms of these orders upon giving the required notice to the other parties.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Security for Costs
-
Impecuniosity
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Logan APZ Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Logan [2017] QCA 288
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Go Gecko (Franchise) Pty Ltd v Plyable Pty Ltd
[2017] QSC 329
Plyable Pty Ltd v Go Gecko (Franchise) Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2016] QSC 256
Archaeo Cultural Heritage Services Pty Ltd v Gall
[2017] QDC 267
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
3
Robson v Robson
[2008] QCA 36
Base 1 Projects Pty Ltd v Islamic College of Brisbane Ltd
[2012] QCA 114
Mbuzi v Hall
[2010] QSC 359