Stewart Webster KC (leading S Walpole) appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by MinterEllison.
The application followed an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs. The plaintiff then sought to provide that security in the form of an after the event insurance policy with an anti-avoidance endorsement. The plaintiff relied on three routes, namely an order under r 673(1) of the UCPR in respect of the form of the security, or alternatively a variation of the original orders pursuant to either r 675 of the UCPR, or to the inherent powers of the court.
Sullivan J dismissed the application. His Honour held that r 673(1) could not be invoked as the statutory power had already been spent — the original orders had fully determined the form of security. The court’s inherent discretion was also exercised against varying the original order. Finally, the power under r 675 to vary an order was not enlivened, as no ‘special circumstances’ were established.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
