Professional Comp. Res. Inc. v Professional Comp. Res. Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 42

Professional Comp. Res. Inc. v Professional Comp. Res. Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 42

Security for costs should not be ordered because the cross-claim for which security was sought largely constituted a defence to the applicant's primary proceedings and concerned the licence agreement whose existence or non-existence was central to the dispute; this was reinforced by the long period since commencement and filing of the cross-claim, the many procedural steps already taken, and the difficulty of assessing prejudice from the late application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Respect of a Cross Claim / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'cross Claim' 'interlocutory Application' 'licence Agreement' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'trade Practices'] ['security for Costs' 'cross Claim' 'interlocutory Application' 'licence Agreement' '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

Application for Security for Costs in Respect of a Cross Claim / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against the first respondent/cross-claimant in respect of its cross-claim.' 'Whether the character of the cross-claim as largely a defence to the primary proceedings weighed against ordering security for costs.' 'Whether the lateness of the application and the steps already taken in the proceedings weighed against ordering security for costs.' "Whether the first respondent's lack of assets or impecuniosity justified ordering security for costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should not be ordered because the cross-claim for which security was sought largely constituted a defence to the applicant's primary proceedings and concerned the licence agreement whose existence or non-existence was central to the dispute; this was reinforced by the long period since commencement and filing of the cross-claim, the many procedural steps already taken, and the difficulty of assessing prejudice from the late application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The present application is dismissed with costs.' 'The matter be listed for hearing or for further directions before Jenkinson J. at a date to be determined.']