|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Ritson v Leighton |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2015] NSWCA 62 |
Hearing Date(s): | 16 March 2014 |
Date of Orders: | 23 March 2015 |
Decision Date: | 23 March 2015 |
Before: | Ward JA |
Decision: | First respondent’s notice of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs |
Catchwords: | PROCEDURE – costs – security for costs – pending hearing of judicial review application – whether reason to believe failure to provide residential address is with intent to deceive – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 42.21 – whether exceptional circumstances justify order for security for costs Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 59.11 – discretionary considerations |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) |
Cases Cited: | AWA v Independent News Auckland [1996] 2 NZLR 184 |
Category: | Costs |
Parties: | Brendan Ritson (Applicant) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | CA 2014/00329234 |
Publication Restriction: | Nil |
Decision under appeal: | |
Court or Tribunal: | District Court of New South Wales |
Jurisdiction: | Civil |
Date of Decision: | 08 August 2014; 29 August 2014; 12 September 2014; 31 October 2014 |
Before: | Balla DCJ and Gibson DCJ |
File Number(s): | 2014/80894 |
[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.…
Continue reading Ritson v Leighton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ritson v Leighton [2015] NSWCA 62
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant's failure to provide a residential address constituted a reason to believe that this omission was made with the intent to deceive, pursuant to rule 42.21 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW). Secondly, the court had to consider whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify an order for security for costs under rule 59.11 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW).
Ward JA dismissed the first respondent's notice of motion for security for costs. The court found that the applicant's failure to provide a residential address did not meet the threshold for an order under rule 42.21, as there was no sufficient evidence to infer an intent to deceive. Furthermore, the court determined that no exceptional circumstances were present to warrant an order for security for costs under rule 59.11. Consequently, the first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
First respondent’s notice of motion for security for costs dismissed with costs
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.