Pegasus Gold Inc v Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1734

Pegasus Gold Inc v Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1734

The Court has an unfettered discretion under s 56(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act to order security for costs and is not bound by the threshold test in s 1335 of the Corporations Law. In the circumstances of this case, orders for security are justified against the applicants and cross-claimants due to real risks relating to payment of costs, but not so far as to cover respondents' potential exposure arising from their own cross-claim against the cross-respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Application; Reasons and Orders on Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for orders for security for costs granted in part; security ordered against applicants and cross-claimants, but not for respondents' potential liability to cross-respondent; quantum and nature of security to be determined by Registrar; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'discretion Under Federal Court of Australia Act S 56' 'corporations Law S 1335' 'cross Claims and Third Party Proceedings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'discretion Under Federal Court of Australia Act S 56' 'corporations Law S 1335' 'cross Claims and Third Party Proceedings' 'costs']

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

Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Application; Reasons and Orders on Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents (BKK) are entitled to security for costs from applicants (Pegasus companies)' 'Whether cross-respondent (Svedala) is entitled to security for costs from cross-claimants (BKK)' 'Whether respondents are entitled to security for costs from applicants for any costs they may be ordered to pay to the cross-respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has an unfettered discretion under s 56(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act to order security for costs and is not bound by the threshold test in s 1335 of the Corporations Law. In the circumstances of this case, orders for security are justified against the applicants and cross-claimants due to real risks relating to payment of costs, but not so far as to cover respondents' potential exposure arising from their own cross-claim against the cross-respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for orders for security for costs granted in part; security ordered against applicants and cross-claimants, but not for respondents' potential liability to cross-respondent; quantum and nature of security to be determined by Registrar; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["The applicants provide security for the respondents' costs of the proceedings, excluding any costs that the respondents may be ordered to pay to the cross-respondent." "The cross-claimants provide security for the cross-respondent's (Svedala) costs of the proceedings." 'The matter be referred to a Registrar for...