Tucker, Megan Jane & Ors v Hargreaves, Paul Richard [1998] FCA 1272

Tucker, Megan Jane & Ors v Hargreaves, Paul Richard [1998] FCA 1272

Jurisdiction to order security for costs was enlivened as the third applicant’s ability to pay the fourth respondent’s costs depended on a contingency (setting aside the charge), but making the order was not appropriate because the motion only targeted the third applicant and not the natural person co-applicants, who were entitled to pursue similar claims. The fourth respondent, as a partner, was not liable for alleged misconduct done by the first respondent in a personal capacity and not in the ordinary course of the partnership’s business.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Motion for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'liability of Partners' 'impecunious Corporate Plaintiffs' 'fiduciary Duties of Solicitors' 'conduct in Ordinary Course of Partnership Business']
['corporations' 'partnerships' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'liability of Partners' 'impecunious Corporate Plaintiffs' 'fiduciary Duties of Solicitors' 'conduct in Ordinary Course of Partnership Business']

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

Interlocutory Application / Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the impecunious corporate applicant should be ordered to provide security for costs under s 1335 of the Corporations Law.' 'Whether the fourth respondent (innocent partner) is liable for the alleged misconduct of the first respondent (partner) under the Partnership Act 1892 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Jurisdiction to order security for costs was enlivened as the third applicant’s ability to pay the fourth respondent’s costs depended on a contingency (setting aside the charge), but making the order was not appropriate because the motion only targeted the third applicant and not the natural person co-applicants, who were entitled to pursue similar claims. The fourth respondent, as a partner, was not liable for alleged misconduct done by the first respondent in a personal capacity and not in the ordinary course of the partnership’s business.

Court Disposition

Motion for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion filed 16 April 1998 be dismissed.' "The costs will be the third applicant's costs in the proceeding against the fourth respondent."]