Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: TC Build Pty Ltd v STM123 Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 322 Hearing dates: 27 March 2023 Date of orders: 3 April 2023 Decision date: 03 April 2023 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Rees J Decision: Orders made for security for costs.
Catchwords: COSTS — security for costs — security resisted given merit of plaintiff’s case — irresistible adverse credit findings said to follow from defendant’s questionable business practices — adverse credit findings said to support acceptance of plaintiff’s substantive case — undesirable to reach views of credibility on security for costs application — principles at [47]-[50] — security for costs ordered.
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 42.21(1A)
Cases Cited: Actors Workshop Pty Ltd v Harrison [2014] QCA 092
BCEG International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Xiao [2021] NSWSC 1027
Bell Wholesale Co Pty Ltd v Gates Export Corporation (No 2) [1984] FCA 34; (1984) 2 FCR 1
Cornelius v Global Medical Solutions Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSCA 65; (2014) 98 ACSR 301
Eastgate Properties Pty Ltd v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd [2006] 2 Qd R 1; [2005] QCA 342
Fiduciary v Morningstar Research [2004] NSWSC 664; (2004) 208 ALR 564
Galati v Deans [2018] NSWSC 1600
IdoportPtyLtdvNationalAustraliaBankLtd [2001] NSWSC 744
In the matter of Australia Wattle Fund Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1664
In the matter of Australian Style Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1368
Jazabas Pty Ltd and Ors v Haddad and Ors [2007] NSWCA 291; (2007) 65 ACSR 276
Live Board Holdings Ltd v Cody Live Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 302
Luo v Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1139
Mitrov Homes Pty Ltd v Mustafa [2022] VSC 5012
Morony v Reschke [2015] NSWSC 860
Re Australian Style Holdings Pty Ltd (as trustee of Australian Style Investments Unit Trust) [2018] NSWSC 1368
Re Colorado Products Pty Limited (in prov liq) [2013] NSWSC 611
Re Pioneer Energy Holdings Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1366
Vintage Marine Art Pty Ltd v Henderson [2015] NSWSC 1439
Wollongong City Council v Legal Business Centre Pty Limited [2012] NSWCA
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: STM123 Pty Ltd (First Applicant/First Defendant)
Hoz Construction Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Ian Hossack (Third Applicant)
Vaughan Blank (Fourth Applicant)
STM123 No 4 Pty Ltd (Fifth Applicant)
STM123 No 6 Pty Ltd (Sixth Applicant)
STM123 No 7 Pty Ltd (Seventh Applicant)
STM123 No 9 Pty Ltd (Eighth Applicant)
STM123 No 16 Pty Ltd (Ninth Applicant)
STM123 No 17 Pty Ltd (Tenth Applicant)
STM123 No 20 Pty Ltd (Eleventh Applicant)
STM123 No 21 Pty Ltd (Twelfth Applicant)
Blank Super Pty Ltd (Thirteenth Applicant)
TC Build Pty Ltd (Respondent/Plaintiff)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr J Hewitt SC (Applicants/Defendants)
Mr D Weinberger / Mr J Whealing (Respondent/Plaintiff)
Bradbury Legal (Applicants/Defendants)
Chedid Storey (Respondent/Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2022/229562
Judgment
-
HER HONOUR: This is an application for security for…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read TC Build Pty Ltd v STM123 Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWSC 322
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether TC Build's case was sufficiently strong to warrant an order for security for costs. It was noted that STM123's business practices raised questions about the reliability of their credit standing, which could impact the outcome of the substantive claim. However, the court emphasised that it was inappropriate to reach conclusions about the credibility of the parties or the merits of the case at the security for costs stage. The court applied principles from previous cases, focusing on the likelihood of success and the adequacy of security, rather than delving into the substantive merits of the case.
Ultimately, the court found that TC Build was likely to succeed in its claim, but the principles at [47]-[50] prevented the court from making a final determination on the security for costs application. Given the nature of the case and the need to protect STM123's interests, the court ordered TC Build to provide security for costs. This decision balanced the need to protect both parties' interests while ensuring that the proceedings could continue without undue financial burden on either side.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.