Troiano v Voci

Troiano, the plaintiff, sought to recover damages from Voci, the defendant, following an alleged road accident. The plaintiff was financially supported by a commercial litigation funder, which provided a funding agreement to the court. The defendant applied for security for costs under rule 62.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) and in the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had made a misstatement regarding their address in the originating process, and that the court should therefore order security for costs. The plaintiff opposed the application, contending that the misstatement was not material and that security for costs was not appropriate.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had made a material misstatement in the originating process, and whether an order for security for costs was warranted. The court also needed to decide the appropriate amount of security if the application was successful. The court considered the relevant principles for determining the appropriate amount of security for costs, and whether a misstatement of address in the originating process was a sufficient ground for ordering security.

The court found that the misstatement of the plaintiff’s address was not material and therefore did not warrant an order for security for costs under rule 62.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). However, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant the application for security for costs. The court considered the principles to be applied in assessing the quantum of security, including the risk of costs being wasted, the merits of the case, and the means of the parties. The court found that the defendant had demonstrated a risk of wasted costs, and that the appropriate amount of security was $10,000.

The court ordered that the plaintiff provide security for costs in the amount of $10,000, and that the security be paid within 14 days of the judgment. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application for security for costs on an indemnity basis.