Von Arnim v The Commonwealth [2005] FCA 1788

Von Arnim v The Commonwealth [2005] FCA 1788

Security for costs was refused because, although some grounds appeared weak and grounds 14 to 22 were abandoned, grounds 6 to 9 raised a possible argument that the primary judge had overlooked a contention under s16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), the respondents did not press for security limited to other grounds, the remaining grounds were likely to be intertwined with grounds 6 to 9, and the evidence showed the appellant could not provide security in any amount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Notice of Motion Filed by the Respondents on 3 November 2005
Outcome
Respondents' notice of motion for security for costs dismissed; leave granted to amend the amended notice of appeal by deleting grounds 14 to 22 inclusive; costs of the motion to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'grounds of Appeal' 'extradition Warrant' "minister's Role Under S16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)"]
['civil Procedure' 'extradition'] ['security for Costs' 'amendment of Notice of Appeal' 'grounds of Appeal' 'extradition Warrant' "minister's Role Under S16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (cth)"]

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 an Appeal / Notice of Motion Filed by the Respondents on 3 November 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents should obtain security for costs against the appellant.' 'Whether the appellant should have leave to amend the amended notice of appeal by deleting grounds 14 to 22 inclusive.' 'Whether the remaining grounds of appeal were so weak that security for costs should be ordered.' 'Whether the appellant had an arguable complaint that the primary judge failed to deal with an argument about s16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused because, although some grounds appeared weak and grounds 14 to 22 were abandoned, grounds 6 to 9 raised a possible argument that the primary judge had overlooked a contention under s16 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), the respondents did not press for security limited to other grounds, the remaining grounds were likely to be intertwined with grounds 6 to 9, and the evidence showed the appellant could not provide security in any amount.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notice of motion for security for costs dismissed; leave granted to amend the amended notice of appeal by deleting grounds 14 to 22 inclusive; costs of the motion to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Leave to the Appellant to amend the amended Notice of Appeal dated September 6, 2005 by deleting paragraphs 14 to 22 both inclusive.' 'The notice of motion filed by the respondents on November 3, 2005 is dismissed.' 'The costs of the motion to be costs in the appeal.']