TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd v Hua Chang Pty Ltd

TTM Investment Corporation Pty Ltd sought security for costs from Hua Chang Pty Ltd. The dispute arose out of a property development project, and the matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that Hua Chang, which was incorporated in Hong Kong, was likely to dissipate its assets and remove them from Australia, thereby depriving TTM of the ability to recover any potential judgment debt. The application was contested by Hua Chang, which argued that the application was premature, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to security for costs due to the strength of its claims.

The court considered the discretionary factors relevant to the granting of security for costs, including whether the party resisting the order was acting purely defensively in the main proceedings. The court held that Hua Chang was not acting purely defensively, as its claims and cross-claims were interconnected with those of the plaintiff. The court also noted that the strength of a party’s claim could be a relevant consideration in deciding whether to grant security for costs. The court held that the plaintiff’s claims were not particularly strong, as they were based on an alleged oral agreement, which was difficult to prove. The court held that the quantum of security should be determined by considering the likely costs of both parties, and that it was difficult to ascertain the quantum where neither party was acting purely defensively. The court also considered the risk of removing assets out of jurisdiction and held that there was a real risk that Hua Chang would dissipate its assets and remove them from Australia.

The court held that an order for security for costs should be made, but the quantum of security should be determined by the Registrar. The court held that the risk of removing assets out of jurisdiction was a relevant consideration, and that Hua Chang had little to no connection with Australia. The court held that Hua Chang had a commercial incentive to remove assets from Australia, and that there was a real risk that it would do so. The court held that the appropriate course of action was to make an order for security for costs, but to leave the quantum to be determined by the Registrar.