Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 1093

Basetec Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 1093

The Court refused further security because it was no longer satisfied that the case fell within s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Although the applicant's financial statements showed a significant reduction in cash and cash equivalents and there were outstanding liabilities, there was a much shorter period before any adverse costs order, the applicant had 25 employees and substantial project experience, had cash reserves, had already paid $300,000 into Court, and had an undrawn overdraft facility of $200,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Dated 13 August 2015
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 1335' "corporate Applicant's Ability to Pay Costs"]
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 1335' "corporate Applicant's Ability to Pay 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

Application for Further Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Dated 13 August 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was reason to believe that the applicant corporation would be unable to pay the respondent's costs within s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)." 'Whether the Court should order the applicant to provide further security for costs in addition to the $300,000 previously paid into Court.' "Whether discretionary matters, including delay and the respondent's choice to deal with the applicant, should affect any order for further security."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused further security because it was no longer satisfied that the case fell within s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Although the applicant's financial statements showed a significant reduction in cash and cash equivalents and there were outstanding liabilities, there was a much shorter period before any adverse costs order, the applicant had 25 employees and substantial project experience, had cash reserves, had already paid $300,000 into Court, and had an undrawn overdraft facility of $200,000.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The respondent's application dated 13 August 2015 be dismissed."]