Aussie Protection Inc & Anor v Hy Way Sunvisors (Sales) Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 783

Aussie Protection Inc & Anor v Hy Way Sunvisors (Sales) Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 783

Justice would best be served by ordering security because both applicants were resident outside Australia, there was no evidence of any reciprocal or otherwise straightforward Maryland procedure for enforcing a Federal Court costs judgment, and the applicants' evidence of impecuniosity was insufficiently detailed to show that an order would likely terminate the proceeding or that their financial position resulted from the respondents' alleged conduct. Security was limited to interlocutory steps at $12,500, with liberty to apply for further security later.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs and Stay in Proceedings Alleging Contravention of S.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Respondents' Motion
Outcome
Respondents' motion for security for costs granted in part; proceedings stayed until security provided.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'applicants Ordinarily Resident Outside Australia' 'discretion to Order Security' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Security' 'foreign Enforcement of Costs Judgment' 'alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'trade Practices' 'corporations' 'private International Law'] ['security for Costs' 'applicants Ordinarily Resident Outside Australia' 'discretion to Order Security' 'stay of Proceedings Pending Security' 'foreign Enforcement of Costs Judgment' 'alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Motion for Security for Costs and Stay in Proceedings Alleging Contravention of S.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Respondents' Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants, being ordinarily resident outside Australia, should be ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs." 'Whether the proceedings should be stayed until security is provided.' 'Whether the alleged impecuniosity of the applicants, and the potential effect of a security order on the continuation of the proceeding, should preclude or reduce an order for security.' 'What amount of security should be ordered at the interlocutory stage.']

Ratio Decidendi

Justice would best be served by ordering security because both applicants were resident outside Australia, there was no evidence of any reciprocal or otherwise straightforward Maryland procedure for enforcing a Federal Court costs judgment, and the applicants' evidence of impecuniosity was insufficiently detailed to show that an order would likely terminate the proceeding or that their financial position resulted from the respondents' alleged conduct. Security was limited to interlocutory steps at $12,500, with liberty to apply for further security later.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion for security for costs granted in part; proceedings stayed until security provided.

Orders

  • ['The Applicants provide security for costs in the amount of $12,500, such security to be in a form agreed between the solicitors for the parties and failing such agreement, in a form acceptable to the Registrar.' 'The proceedings be stayed until the Applicants have complied with Order (1).' 'The parties have...