Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Bark Creek Pty Ltd t/as GRANDS Poultry Service & Anor [1997] FCA 464

Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Bark Creek Pty Ltd t/as GRANDS Poultry Service & Anor [1997] FCA 464

Security for costs was warranted because Bark Creek was hopelessly insolvent and was prosecuting a very large and complex counter-claim that would require Inghams to incur substantial additional costs beyond defending the trading debt claim. The discretionary objections raised by Bark Creek did not justify refusing security, and $70,000 was a conservative amount for the additional costs of defending the counter-claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Respect of Costs of Defending a Counter Claim / Orders Made on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application granted; Bark Creek Pty Ltd ordered to provide $70,000 security for costs and the counter-claim stayed in the meantime.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'counter Claim by Corporate Respondent' 'insolvency' 'discretion to Order Security' 'trade Practices Act Allegations']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'trade Practices'] ['security for Costs' 'counter Claim by Corporate Respondent' 'insolvency' 'discretion to Order Security' 'trade Practices Act Allegations']

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 Costs of Defending a Counter Claim / Orders Made on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Bark Creek Pty Ltd, as a corporate respondent and cross-claimant, should provide security for Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd's costs of defending the counter-claim." 'Whether delay, asserted bona fide prospects, alleged causation of impecuniosity, oppression, disparity of resources, or the possibility that security would defeat the counter-claim justified refusing security.' 'What amount of security should be ordered and how the order should affect the counter-claim and defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was warranted because Bark Creek was hopelessly insolvent and was prosecuting a very large and complex counter-claim that would require Inghams to incur substantial additional costs beyond defending the trading debt claim. The discretionary objections raised by Bark Creek did not justify refusing security, and $70,000 was a conservative amount for the additional costs of defending the counter-claim.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Bark Creek Pty Ltd ordered to provide $70,000 security for costs and the counter-claim stayed in the meantime.

Orders

  • ['The respondent Bark Creek Pty Ltd pay into Court the amount of $70,000 or otherwise give security for costs satisfactory to the applicant or approved by order of the Court in a like sum, within 28 days. In the meantime the counter-claim is stayed.' 'Adjourn directions hearing to 9.00 a.m. on 3 April 1997.' 'The...