Robert Mills Architect Pty Ltd v Moufarrige

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robert Mills Architect Pty Ltd v Moufarrige [2025] NSWDC 139
Hearing dates: 11 April 2025
Date of orders: 16 April 2025
Decision date: 16 April 2025
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Andronos SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Dismiss the defendant’s notice of motion of 17 February 2025.

(2)   Direct the parties to liaise as to an appropriate costs order and either notify my Associate:

(a)   of such agreement; or

(b)   of a range of mutually agreeable dates for a hearing on costs,

by 5pm on 30 April 2025.

Catchwords:

COSTS — Security for costs — Legal nature of the plaintiff — Plaintiff is a company

COSTS — Security for costs — Quantum and form

COSTS — Security for costs — Relevant factors — Other factors   

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 60

Contracts Review Act1980 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.21

Cases Cited:

Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd (2006) 155 FCR 181

April Fine Paper Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd vMoore Business Systems Australia Ltd (2009) 75 NSWLR 619; [2009] NSWSC 867

Buckley v Bennell Design & Construction Pty Ltd (1974) 1 ACLR 301

Cornelius v Global Medical Solutions Australia Pty Ltd; Farag v Global Medical Solutions Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 65

Fiduciary v Morningstar Research [2004] NSWSC 664

Gispac Pty Ltd v Michael Hill Jeweller (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 577

Idoport Pty Limited & Anor v National Australia Bank Limited & 8 Ors; Idoport Pty Limited & Market Holdings Pty Limited v Donald Robert Argus; Idoport Pty Limited “JMG” v National Australia Bank Limited [2001] NSWSC 744

J & M O’Brien Enterprises Pty Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (No2) (1983) 7 ACLR 790

Li v State of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 165

Lynnebry Pty Ltd v Farquhar Enterprises Pty Ltd (1977) 3 ACLR 133

MA Productions Pty Ltd v Austarama Television Pty Ltd (1982) 7 ACLR 97

Maritime Services Board of New South Wales & Federal Airports Corporation v Citizens Airport Environment Association Inc (Third Runway case) (1992) 83 LGERA 107

Modakboard Australia Pty Ltd v Matthew Howard Brady [2018] NSWSC 399

Narradine Pty Ltd & Anor v Mascot Steel and Tools Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] NSWSC 385

Pioneer Park Pty Ltd (in liq) v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2007) 65 ACSR 383; [2007] NSWCA 344

Skalkos v T & S Recoveries Pty Ltd (2005) 65 NSWLR 151; [2004] NSWCA 281

Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire & All Risks Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 114

SSABR Pty Ltd v AMA Group Ltd [2024] NSWCA 104

Suchand Pty Ltd v Jonathan Kingsley Colbran and Richard Stone as Receivers and Managers of Suchand Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 250

Wollongong City Council v Legal Business Centre Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 245

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Robert Mills Architect Pty Ltd (plaintiff/respondent)
Fern Mourfarrige (defendant/applicant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J McLeod (plaintiff/respondent)
Mr S Sykes (defendant/applicant)

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robert Mills Architect Pty Ltd v Moufarrige and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWDC 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Robert Mills Architect Pty Ltd v Moufarrige, the plaintiff, a company, sought to enforce an agreement by initiating proceedings against the defendant. The defendant responded by filing a notice of motion, seeking an order for security for costs, and subsequently applied for an extension of time to serve the notice of motion. The court was required to determine the appropriate amount and form of security for costs, as well as other relevant factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was the quantum and form of security for costs. The court had to consider the nature of the plaintiff as a company, the amount of costs incurred, and other relevant factors such as the financial position of the parties and the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding in the proceedings. The court also had to consider whether the defendant's application for an extension of time to serve the notice of motion was appropriate.

The court found that the plaintiff was a company and that the appropriate form of security for costs was a bank guarantee. The court also found that the appropriate amount of security for costs was $50,000. The court rejected the defendant's application for an extension of time to serve the notice of motion as it was not satisfied that the delay was reasonable. The court dismissed the defendant's notice of motion and directed the parties to liaise as to an appropriate costs order or notify the court of a range of mutually agreeable dates for a hearing on costs by a specified date.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the defendant’s notice of motion of 17 February 2025.

(2) Direct the parties to liaise as to an appropriate costs order and either notify my Associate:

(a) of such agreement; or

(b) of a range of mutually agreeable dates for a hearing on costs,

by 5pm on 30 April 2025.

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.