Era Polymers Pty Ltd & Anor v Uniroyal Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 148

Era Polymers Pty Ltd & Anor v Uniroyal Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 148

The rationale for ordering security for costs is displaced when the guiding mind, a person of means and a co-applicant, can be made directly liable for costs. There should be no order for security in such circumstances, particularly where public interest aspects and the risk of stifling claims arise under the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Parties
First Applicant: ERA Polymers Pty. Limited; Second Applicant: George Papamanuel; First Respondent / Cross Claimant: Uniroyal Australia Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: Schenectady Chemicals Australia Pty. Limited; First Cross Respondent: ERA Polymers Pty. Limited; Second Cross Respondent: George Papamanuel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application in Commercial/civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Security for Costs)
Outcome
Applications for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Part IV Trade Practices Act 1974, Company Applicant Liability, Costs in Interlocutory Applications
Commercial Law Trade Practices Civil Procedure Security for Costs Part IV Trade Practices Act 1974 Company Applicant Liability Costs in Interlocutory Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ERA Polymers Pty. Limited

First Applicant

George Papamanuel

Second Applicant

Uniroyal Australia Pty. Limited

First Respondent / Cross Claimant

Schenectady Chemicals Australia Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

ERA Polymers Pty. Limited

First Cross Respondent

George Papamanuel

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application in Commercial/civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (application for Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against company applicant where co-applicant is a person of means
  2. 2 Whether the rationale for security for costs applies when the individual applicant is principal of the company

Ratio Decidendi

The rationale for ordering security for costs is displaced when the guiding mind, a person of means and a co-applicant, can be made directly liable for costs. There should be no order for security in such circumstances, particularly where public interest aspects and the risk of stifling claims arise under the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications for security for costs dismissed.