Frigger v Trenfield [2021] FCA 792

Frigger v Trenfield [2021] FCA 792

Security for costs was appropriate and plainly in the interests of justice because the applicants had failed to meet costs orders, had previously failed to provide ordered security, had disregarded court orders, had delayed bringing the annulment application without adequate explanation, sought to raise matters already considered and rejected, had no identified means by which the second respondent might recover costs, and on their own account had access to substantial funds. The amount of $25,000 was reasonable for a one day hearing and should not be confined to the summary judgment application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Bankruptcy Annulment Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs allowed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Orders' 'costs Orders' 'interests of Justice']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'insolvency'] ['security for Costs' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Orders' 'costs Orders' 'interests of Justice']

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 Bankruptcy Annulment Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should provide security for the second respondent's costs of defending the proceeding." "Whether the merits of the applicants' substantive application for annulment or to set aside sequestration orders justified refusing or limiting security for costs." 'Whether the amount of security sought by the second respondent was reasonable.' 'Whether liberty to apply should be granted in relation to alleged inclusion of material in breach of Supreme Court of Western Australia confidentiality orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was appropriate and plainly in the interests of justice because the applicants had failed to meet costs orders, had previously failed to provide ordered security, had disregarded court orders, had delayed bringing the annulment application without adequate explanation, sought to raise matters already considered and rejected, had no identified means by which the second respondent might recover costs, and on their own account had access to substantial funds. The amount of $25,000 was reasonable for a one day hearing and should not be confined to the summary judgment application.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs allowed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 19.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicants are to provide the second respondent with security for their costs of and incidental to defending this proceeding in the sum of $25,000.' 'The security referred to in order 1 is to be provided by payment into Court or the provision of an...