Tomanovic Multiown Pty Ltd v Interlux Projects Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between Tomanovic Multiown Pty Ltd (the appellant) and Interlux Projects Pty Ltd and two other respondents. The appellant sought to appeal a decision, but the respondents applied for security for their costs of the appeal. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether to grant the application for security for costs and, if so, the amount and form of that security.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant, a corporate trustee, should be ordered to provide security for the costs of the respondents in the appeal. This involved considering the appellant's status as a corporate trustee, the existence of an unpaid gross sum costs order from previous proceedings, and the absence of any application by the appellant for a stay of proceedings pending the provision of security. The court had to assess the criteria relevant to the exercise of its power to order security for costs in these circumstances.

The court reasoned that the appellant, as a corporate trustee, was a proper subject for a security for costs order, particularly given the existence of an outstanding costs order against it. The court applied the principles governing applications for security for costs, which generally require the applicant to demonstrate a real risk that the respondent will be unable to recover their costs if an order is not made. The court found that the circumstances warranted the imposition of security.

The court ordered that the proceedings on the appeal be stayed until the appellant provided security for the legal costs of the respondents in the amount of $31,500. This security was to be in the form of a bank guarantee lodged with the Registrar or payment into court. The costs of the motion were also ordered to be the costs of the respondents in the appeal.