TransAsia Private Capital Limited v Miller — Court releases $50,000 security-for-costs payment to plaintiffs

Case
TransAsia Private Capital Limited v Miller
Court
Supreme Court of New South Wales (Australia)
Judge
Campbell J (of New South Wales Marie Bashir, 2012)
Date Decided
21 September 2026
Citation
[2026] NSWSC 1173
Topics
civil procedure, security for costs, default judgment, funds in court

Background

TransAsia Private Capital Limited, acting as manager for Asian Trade Finance Fund 2, and TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited sued Adrian Douglas Miller for a debt under a deed of guarantee. The guaranteed borrower was PacificStar Airline Management (HK) Limited.

Miller entered an appearance but did not file a defence. The plaintiffs obtained default judgment on 11 August 2026 for USD $9,585,018.25, including AUD $5,529 in scale costs. During the proceeding, the registrar had ordered the plaintiffs to provide AUD $50,000 as security for Miller’s costs, and that amount was paid into court.

The Court’s Holding

Campbell J ordered that the AUD $50,000 security payment, less any registrar’s fee, be paid out of court to the plaintiffs or in accordance with their written authority under rr 41.3 and 41.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

Because the plaintiffs had obtained default judgment, they were entitled to recover the money they had paid into court as security. No other person had an entitlement to it; any contingent entitlement Miller might have had under the security order had merged in the default judgment. Miller did not appear, but the Court was satisfied that he had been served with the motion and supporting affidavit by email.

Key Takeaways

  • A successful plaintiff may obtain repayment of money paid into court as security for costs after judgment.
  • A defendant’s potential entitlement to security for costs may cease once the plaintiff obtains default judgment.
  • Service of a payment-out motion by email was accepted on the evidence, including a read receipt.

Why It Matters

The decision is a straightforward application of the rules governing security held by the court. It confirms that security for costs is protective and contingent: once the party who provided it obtains judgment, the fund may be released where no competing entitlement remains.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top