Ren v Jiang (No 4)

Case [2014] NSWCA 315

Court of Appeal

New South Wales
Case Title: Ren v Jiang (No 4)
Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWCA 315
Hearing Date(s): 8 September 2014
Decision Date: 10 September 2014
Before: Leeming JA
Decision:

1. The notice of motion filed 21 July 2014 be dismissed with costs.
2. The costs in order 1 to be calculated on an indemnity basis for the period on and after 13 August 2014.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: PRACTICE - security for costs - unexplained delay - unexplained standing by while other respondents seek and obtain security for costs - security already given by caveats on real property - no evidence of material change in circumstances
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 471B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 42.21, 51.50
Cases Cited: Brundza v Robbie & Co (No 2) (1952) 88 CLR 171
Charara v Integrex Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 342
Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd (1990) 64 ALJR 533
Fleming v Marshall [2010] NSWCA 152
Green v CGU Insurance Ltd [2008] NSWCA 148; 67 ACSR 105
In the matter of Wan Ze Property Development (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 722; 90 ACSR 593
International Greetings (UK) Ltd (formerly Scandinavian Design Ltd) v Stansfield [2010] NSWSC 461
McLaughlin v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 143
Ren v Jiang [2014] NSWCA 1
Ren v Jiang (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 119
Ren v Jiang (No 3) [2014] NSWCA 204
Wollongong City Council v Legal Business Centre Pty Limited [2012] NSWCA 245
Xu v Wan Ze Development (Aust) (in liq) [2014] FCA 461
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Ke Qin Ren (First applicant)
Pei Xu (Second applicant)
Yi Cheng Jiang (Third applicant)
Gloconnect Pty Ltd (Fourth applicant)
Hong Jiang (First respondent)
Yongan Xie (Second respondent)
Wan Ze Property Development (Aust) Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Third respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
J E Sexton SC and J Lee (First, second and fourth applicants, respondents on the motion for security)
D C Eardley (Third respondent; applicant on the motion for security)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Ren Zhou Lawyers (First, second and fourth applicants)
Downeys Lawyers (Third respondent)
File Number(s): 2012/240805
Decision Under Appeal
- Before: Black J
- Date of Decision:  19 July 2012
- Citation: [2012] NSWSC 821
- Court File Number(s): 2011/51745

JUDGMENT

  1. By notice of motion filed 21 July 2014, the third respondent, who is the liquidator of Wan Ze Property Development (Aust) Pty Ltd, applies for security for costs. As refined during the hearing, the amount of security sought to be provided excludes the historical costs of proceedings in this Court, and is confined…

Continue reading Ren v Jiang (No 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ren v Jiang (No 4) [2014] NSWCA 315
Case
[2014] NSWCA 315
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ren v Jiang (No 4)*, the applicant sought to set aside an earlier order for security for costs. The respondent, Jiang, had previously obtained an order for security for costs against the applicant, Ren. This security had been provided by way of caveats lodged on real property.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to justify setting aside the existing order for security for costs. This involved considering the applicant's delay in bringing the application and the fact that other respondents had already obtained and been provided with security.

Leeming JA dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in seeking to set aside the security order. His Honour noted that the applicant had stood by while other respondents had successfully sought and obtained security. Furthermore, the existing security, provided by way of caveats on real property, remained in place and there was no evidence of a material change in circumstances that would warrant varying or discharging the order.

The notice of motion filed by the applicant was dismissed with costs. These costs were to be calculated on an indemnity basis for the period on and after 13 August 2014.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The notice of motion filed 21 July 2014 be dismissed with costs.

2. The costs in order 1 to be calculated on an indemnity basis for the period on and after 13 August 2014.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.