Taouk v Assure (NSW) Pty Ltd

In *Taouk v Assure (NSW) Pty Ltd*, the appellant, a property developer, sought to appeal a decision. The respondent applied for security for costs of the appeal, alleging the appellant had failed to comply with orders made at first instance and that there was reason to believe the appellant had divested assets to avoid potential adverse costs orders. The application for security for costs was heard by Meagher JA.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant's non-compliance with prior orders and the alleged divestment of assets through a discretionary trust justified an order for security for costs on appeal. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the appellant's interests in properties held under a discretionary trust, and the circumstances surrounding the sale of two properties at undervalue, provided a sufficient basis to believe the appellant was attempting to avoid their liabilities.

Meagher JA dismissed the respondent's application for security for costs. The Court found that the appellant's non-compliance with orders at first instance did not, in the circumstances, warrant security for costs on appeal. Furthermore, the Court was not satisfied that there was sufficient reason to believe the appellant had divested assets to avoid the consequences of an adverse costs order by causing the trustee to sell properties at undervalue. The Court applied the principles governing security for costs, particularly in the context of appeals, and found the respondent had not met the threshold required for such an order.

The respondent's notice of motion filed on 14 June 2017 was dismissed with costs.