Barry v City West Water Ltd [2000] FCA 553

Barry v City West Water Ltd [2000] FCA 553

City West Water has not established by credible evidence that Streamline Drains will be unable to pay the costs if successful, hence the pre-condition for security for costs is not met; even if assets are discounted, there appears sufficient to cover estimated costs; bona fide claims and relevant undertakings further weigh against granting security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory (motion Decided)
Outcome
Motion for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporate Insolvency' 'court Discretion' 'evidence of Solvency']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'corporate Insolvency' 'court Discretion' 'evidence of Solvency']

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

Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory (motion Decided)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is reason to believe the corporate applicant is unable to pay costs of a successful respondent under s 1335(1) Corporations Law' 'Whether security for costs should be ordered under s 56 Federal Court of Australia Act']

Ratio Decidendi

City West Water has not established by credible evidence that Streamline Drains will be unable to pay the costs if successful, hence the pre-condition for security for costs is not met; even if assets are discounted, there appears sufficient to cover estimated costs; bona fide claims and relevant undertakings further weigh against granting security.

Court Disposition

Motion for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ['The motion, notice of which is dated 27 January 2000, be dismissed.' "The first respondent pay the second applicant's costs of and incidental to the motion, including the costs incurred on 28 March 2000."]