Frigger v Trenfield (No 14) [2023] FCA 307

Frigger v Trenfield (No 14) [2023] FCA 307

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds had reasonable prospects of success and no House v The King error was shown in the primary judge's discretionary order for security for costs. The primary judge had considered the applicants' bankruptcy, the risk of stifling, the merits of the substantive claims and multiple additional factors supporting security; the complaints about the annulment and sequestration issues lacked merit; and the recusal ground disclosed neither actual nor apprehended bias. Additional factors against leave included that the $25,000 security had already been paid, the order was interlocutory and discretionary, it did not determine the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Security for Costs Order in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Orders' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'judicial Recusal' 'discretionary Decisions']
['bankruptcy' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Orders' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'judicial Recusal' 'discretionary Decisions']

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 Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Security for Costs Order in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the primary judge's order for security for costs of $25,000." "Whether the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success or the primary judge's discretionary decision was attended with sufficient doubt." 'Whether the security for costs order was plainly wrong or unreasonable because the applicants were bankrupt and said they could not access superannuation funds without vesting consequences.' 'Whether the primary judge mistook the grounds relied on to set aside the sequestration orders or annul the bankruptcies.' 'Whether the primary judge erred by refusing to recuse himself for actual or apprehended bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds had reasonable prospects of success and no House v The King error was shown in the primary judge's discretionary order for security for costs. The primary judge had considered the applicants' bankruptcy, the risk of stifling, the merits of the substantive claims and multiple additional factors supporting security; the complaints about the annulment and sequestration issues lacked merit; and the recusal ground disclosed neither actual nor apprehended bias. Additional factors against leave included that the $25,000 security had already been paid, the order was interlocutory and discretionary, it did not determine the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicants are to pay the second respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]