Ward v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ward v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd [2023] NSWCA 11
Hearing dates: 8 February 2023
Date of orders: 15 February 2023
Decision date: 15 February 2023
Before: Ward P at [1]
Adamson JA at [2]
Griffiths AJA at [3]
Decision:

(1) Leave to appeal granted.

(2) Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Catchwords:

COSTS – Security for costs – On appeal – Decision of the Supreme Court ordering the applicants to pay security for costs to first and second respondents – No House v The King error established in primary judge’s exercise of discretion – Claim that the UCPR exclusively governs the Court’s jurisdiction to order the payment of security for costs rejected

Legislation Cited:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2002] NSWCA 271

Green v CGU Insurance Ltd [2008] NSWCA 148; (2008) 67 ACSR 105

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Live Board Holdings Ltd v Cody Live Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 302

Mahommed v Cox as Administrator of the Deceased Estate of Dixon [2022] FCA 886

Marshall v Megna [2013] NSWCA 30

Melville v Craig Nowlan & Associates Pty Ltd (2002) 54 NSWLR 82; [2002] NSWCA 32

Mitchell v Transport for NSW [2022] NSWCA 141

Mohareb v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 231

Morris v Hanley [2001] NSWCA 374

Ninan v St George Bank Ltd [2012] FCA 905; (2012) 294 ALR 190

Townsend v O’Donnell [2016] NSWCA 288; (2016) 78 MVR 283

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Roger Thomas Ward (First Applicant)
Peter Shah Mahommed (Second Applicant)
Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd (First Respondent)
Karen Ann Cox (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Docker and E Keynes (First Respondent)
D Allen (Second Respondent)

Solicitors:
Leonardus Smits Lawyer (Applicants)
TG Legal + Technology (First Respondent)
Shaba & Thomas Lawyers (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00123937
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Date of Decision:
4 April 2022
Before:
Lindsay J
File Number(s):
2020/00247595

JUDGMENT

  1. WARD P: I agree with Griffiths AJA.

  2. ADAMSON JA: I agree with Griffiths AJA.

  3. GRIFFITHS AJA: The applicants seek leave to appeal against orders made by Lindsay J in the Supreme Court on 4 April 2022. His Honour ordered that Mr Ward and Mr Mahommed, the first and second plaintiffs below, jointly provide security for costs of Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd, the first defendant below, in the sum of $150,000 and security for costs of Ms Cox, the third defendant below, in the sum of $125,000. His Honour ordered that the security be paid on or before 4 August 2022. The proceedings were stayed pending payment of the security. The second defendant did not appear below and did not seek security for costs. Nor did it play any role in the proceedings in this Court. It should also be noted that the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ward v Westpac Banking Corporation 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] NSWCA 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Ward and others, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which ordered them to pay security for costs to the first and second respondents, Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd and others. The dispute concerned the applicants' claim that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) exclusively governed the Court's jurisdiction to order the payment of security for costs, and that the primary judge had erred in exercising their discretion to order such security.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had made an error in the exercise of their discretion in ordering the applicants to provide security for costs. A further issue was whether the UCPR, specifically rule 53.1, exclusively governed the Court's power to order security for costs, thereby precluding any other basis for such an order.

The Court found no error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion, holding that the applicants had failed to establish a "House v The King" error. The Court rejected the submission that the UCPR exclusively governed the Court's jurisdiction to order security for costs, confirming that the Court retained an inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs in appropriate circumstances, even if not explicitly provided for by the UCPR.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the applicants ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Leave to appeal granted.

(2) Appeal dismissed, with costs.

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.