Rydstrand v Ganjekar

[2015] NSWDC 428

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rydstrand v Ganjekar [2015] NSWDC 428
Hearing dates:	14 August 2015
Date of orders:	14 August 2015
Decision date:	14 August 2015
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1)   Refuse the application for security for costs. (2)   Dismiss the defendant’s notice of motion. (3)   Stand over for further directions on Monday, 24 August 2015 at 10am before the Judicial Registrar. (4)   No order for the costs of the application on the basis that each party should bear their own costs.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – interlocutory applications – security for costs – corporation impecunious – sole director a co-plaintiff – director’s proceedings likely to continue in any event – overlap of issues – director amenable to cost order – defects in pleadings – delay – costs
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 42.21
Cases Cited:	Everett v Neale [2012] NSWDC 73 Fiduciary v Morningstar Research [2004] NSWSC 664 Harpur v Ariadne Australia Ltd (No 2) [1984] 2 Qd R 523; (1984) 8 ACLR 835; (1984) 2 ACLC 356 KP Cable Investments Pty Ltd v Meltglow Pty Ltd (1995) 56 FCA 189
Texts Cited:	Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Victoria Rydstrand (first plaintiff) The Switch Decor Company Pty Ltd (Switch Decor) (second plaintiff) Sayeeprasad Ganjekar (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Maroya (defendant)   Solicitors: Mark Baker (defendant)
File Number(s):	2014/47726
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. The defendant, Sayeeprasad Ganjekar, applies for an order for security for costs against the second plaintiff, The Switch Decor Company Pty Ltd (“Switch Decor”).

2. The plaintiffs comprise Switch Decor and its sole director and shareholder, Victoria Rydstrand. There is no issue that Switch Decor is impecunious and thus "that there is reason to believe that a plaintiff, being a corporation, will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if ordered to do so" (see r 42.21(1)(d) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005).

3. The terms of the notice of motion for security are brief. It seeks an order for security of Mr Ganjekar’s costs, but does not nominate the amount of security sought, the form of security or whether any orders should be made in the event that the security ordered is not provided.

4. After repeated inquiries by the Court, Mr Ganjekar identified that he sought the sum of $35,000, or such other sum as the Court might think appropriate, to be provided by way of bank cheque or other appropriate security to be held by Mr Ganjekar’s solicitor pending determination of the proceedings and that the whole proceedings, including the proceedings of Ms Rydstrand, be stayed if security was not provided.

5. Ms Rydstrand, who appeared self‑represented and also appeared as the sole director of Switch Decor, opposed this method of amending the notice of motion. She did not seek any adjournment to deal with it but sought to have the motion proceed.

6. I do not think any application against Ms Rydstrand (including an application to…