Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd & Anor v Borland, John & Ors [1998] FCA 163

Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd & Anor v Borland, John & Ors [1998] FCA 163

The appeal as against the second respondent was dismissed because the ordered security had not been provided, the appellant had already had multiple opportunities and hearings to deal with security, the appeal had been on foot for a long time and fixed for hearing, and the proposed charge over Longhurst & Andrew Pty Ltd's property sale proceeds was not shown by sufficient evidence to be appropriate security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Application for Dismissal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs / Judgment on Motion After Security for Costs Orders
Outcome
Appeal as against the second respondent dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Provide Security' 'costs of Motion' 'adequacy of Proposed Security']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Provide Security' 'costs of Motion' 'adequacy of Proposed Security']

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

Appeal; Application for Dismissal for Failure to Provide Security for Costs / Judgment on Motion After Security for Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal as against the second respondent should be dismissed because security for costs had not been provided.' 'Whether the proposed charge over proceeds of sale of property of Longhurst & Andrew Pty Ltd was appropriate security in lieu of payment of money or a bank guarantee.' "Whether the appellants should pay the third respondent's costs of the dismissal motion after security was provided to the third respondent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal as against the second respondent was dismissed because the ordered security had not been provided, the appellant had already had multiple opportunities and hearings to deal with security, the appeal had been on foot for a long time and fixed for hearing, and the proposed charge over Longhurst & Andrew Pty Ltd's property sale proceeds was not shown by sufficient evidence to be appropriate security.

Court Disposition

Appeal as against the second respondent dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

Orders

  • ['The appeal as against the second respondent be dismissed.' 'The appellants pay the costs of the second and third respondents.']