Crestel Pty Ltd & Ors v The Australian National University & Ors [1996] FCA 912

Crestel Pty Ltd & Ors v The Australian National University & Ors [1996] FCA 912

The motion for security was refused without prejudice because, although circumstances had changed and the respondents' costs estimates had increased, the Court considered it more appropriate to reconsider further security during the trial when costs and the issues could be assessed more accurately; the application had been delayed despite being foreshadowed months earlier, and a stay could disrupt allocated trial time and significantly delay the proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs or Further Security / Motion Before Trial
Outcome
Motion for security refused without prejudice to the respondents' right to renew the application in the course of the trial; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'discretion' 'trial Listing' 'cross Claims']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'further Security for Costs' 'discretion' 'trial Listing' 'cross Claims']

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 or Further Security / Motion Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents' motion for security or further security should be granted before the scheduled trial." 'Whether the question of further security should instead be reconsidered during the trial when costs and issues could be assessed more precisely.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for security was refused without prejudice because, although circumstances had changed and the respondents' costs estimates had increased, the Court considered it more appropriate to reconsider further security during the trial when costs and the issues could be assessed more accurately; the application had been delayed despite being foreshadowed months earlier, and a stay could disrupt allocated trial time and significantly delay the proceeding.

Court Disposition

Motion for security refused without prejudice to the respondents' right to renew the application in the course of the trial; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The motion for security is refused without prejudice to the right of the respondents to renew the application in the course of the trial on such further material as they may be advised.' "The costs of all parties of today's motion are reserved."]