Manhattan (Asia) Limited v Dymocks Franchise Systems (China) Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 1323

Manhattan (Asia) Limited v Dymocks Franchise Systems (China) Limited (No 2) [2016] FCA 1323

The Court dismissed the substantive proceedings because Manhattan had failed to comply with the December 2014 security for costs orders for almost two years, had adequate notice of the dismissal application, appeared incapable of funding the proceedings or giving instructions, was to be dissolved imminently, and the continuation of the proceedings prejudiced DFS through increased insurance consequences and increasing difficulty in obtaining evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Dismiss Proceedings for Failure to Pay Security for Costs / Hearing of Respondent's Interlocutory Application Under S 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) and R 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome
The substantive proceedings were dismissed and Manhattan was ordered to pay Dymocks' costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'dismissal for Failure to Comply With Security for Costs Order' 'stay of Proceedings' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'dismissal for Failure to Comply With Security for Costs Order' 'stay of 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

Interlocutory Application to Dismiss Proceedings for Failure to Pay Security for Costs / Hearing of Respondent's Interlocutory Application Under S 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) and R 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the substantive proceedings should be dismissed because Manhattan failed to provide security for costs ordered in December 2014.' "Whether the circumstances, including delay, notice, inability to fund the proceedings, prejudice to DFS and Manhattan's imminent dissolution, justified immediate dismissal rather than giving a further opportunity to pay security."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the substantive proceedings because Manhattan had failed to comply with the December 2014 security for costs orders for almost two years, had adequate notice of the dismissal application, appeared incapable of funding the proceedings or giving instructions, was to be dissolved imminently, and the continuation of the proceedings prejudiced DFS through increased insurance consequences and increasing difficulty in obtaining evidence.

Court Disposition

The substantive proceedings were dismissed and Manhattan was ordered to pay Dymocks' costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 19.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the substantive proceedings are dismissed.' "Manhattan (Asia) Limited is to pay Dymocks Franchise Systems (China) Limited's costs as agreed or taxed."]