Fazio Richards Pty Ltd v Ibis Way Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1082

Fazio Richards Pty Ltd v Ibis Way Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1082

Security for costs was appropriate because the Appellants were in financial difficulty, had not satisfied the costs order made below, had adduced no evidence showing capacity to meet an adverse costs order on appeal, and there was a high risk that any such costs order would not be satisfied. Although the Court did not conclude that all appeal grounds were wholly unmeritorious and treated some prospects issues as neutral, the risk of deprivation of costs to Respondents who already had judgment in their favour made security just. The amount sought was not fully supported by evidence, so security was ordered in a lower amount based on a one-day appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Appeal From Fazio Richards Pty Ltd V Ibis Way Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 308
Outcome
The Respondents' applications for security for costs were granted in part; the Appellants were ordered to provide security of $40,000, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'appeal' 'power of the Federal Court to Order Security for Costs' 'confidentiality on Court File']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['security for Costs' 'appeal' 'power of the Federal Court to Order Security for Costs' 'confidentiality on Court File']

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

Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Appeal From Fazio Richards Pty Ltd V Ibis Way Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 308

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order the Appellants to provide security for the Respondents' costs of the appeal." "Whether the Appellants' financial circumstances and the risk that a costs order would not be satisfied justified security for costs." 'Whether the prospects of success of the appeal weighed for or against ordering security for costs.' 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was appropriate because the Appellants were in financial difficulty, had not satisfied the costs order made below, had adduced no evidence showing capacity to meet an adverse costs order on appeal, and there was a high risk that any such costs order would not be satisfied. Although the Court did not conclude that all appeal grounds were wholly unmeritorious and treated some prospects issues as neutral, the risk of deprivation of costs to Respondents who already had judgment in their favour made security just. The amount sought was not fully supported by evidence, so security was ordered in a lower amount based on a one-day appeal.

Court Disposition

The Respondents' applications for security for costs were granted in part; the Appellants were ordered to provide security of $40,000, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order 8 of the Orders made 17 June 2016 be vacated.' 'Until further order, Annexure MAN-2 to the affidavit of Michael Andrew Nurse sworn on 9 June 2016 be maintained as confidential on the Court file and its contents not be published or otherwise disclosed in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of...