Cherry, Nicholas William John & Ors v Read, Brian & Ors [1996] FCA 815

Cherry, Nicholas William John & Ors v Read, Brian & Ors [1996] FCA 815

Applicants had not established that the litigation would necessarily be prevented by an order for security for costs; the Court was not satisfied on the material that making such an order would stifle the litigation and exercised its discretion to order security for costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; applicants' proceeding stayed until security provided
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity' 'benefit From Litigation' 'discretionary Orders']

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 / Interlocutory Decision

  1. 1 ['Whether order for security for costs would stifle the litigation' 'Who stands to benefit from the litigation' 'Whether relevant parties are impecunious' 'Discretionary nature of security for costs order']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants had not established that the litigation would necessarily be prevented by an order for security for costs; the Court was not satisfied on the material that making such an order would stifle the litigation and exercised its discretion to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; applicants' proceeding stayed until security provided

Orders

  • ['Applicants provide security for costs for first to fifth respondents ($100,000) and seventh respondent ($50,000)' 'Such security to be provided within 21 days and in a form acceptable to District Registrar' 'Proceeding stayed until security is provided, subject to further order' "Applicants to pay first to fifth...