Artex Industries Pty Ltd (ACN 071 280 969) v Autofab (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 075 782 133) [2005] FCA 589

Artex Industries Pty Ltd (ACN 071 280 969) v Autofab (Australia) Pty Ltd (ACN 075 782 133) [2005] FCA 589

The emergence of the handwritten action plan did not demonstrate, even prima facie, that the applicants' impecuniosity was brought about or contributed to by the respondents' impugned conduct, and therefore did not justify revoking or varying the earlier security for costs order. Further security for costs after the first day of trial was also refused at this stage because the usual practice is to leave that question to the trial judge, particularly given the indicated narrowing of issues for trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motions Concerning Security for Costs, Amendment of Pleadings and Trial Affidavits / Before Trial
Outcome
Applicants granted leave to further amend the application and statement of claim; applicants' motion otherwise dismissed; second and third respondents' motion for further security dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'variation or Revocation of Interlocutory Orders' 'amendment of Application and Statement of Claim' 'case Management Directions']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'variation or Revocation of Interlocutory Orders' 'amendment of Application and Statement of Claim' 'case Management Directions']

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 Motions Concerning Security for Costs, Amendment of Pleadings and Trial Affidavits / Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should be relieved from the obligation under the order of 19 April 2004 to provide security for the second and third respondents' costs up to and including the first day of trial." 'Whether the second and third respondents should receive further security for their costs after the first day of trial.' 'Whether the applicants should have leave further to amend the application and statement of claim and associated timetable directions should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The emergence of the handwritten action plan did not demonstrate, even prima facie, that the applicants' impecuniosity was brought about or contributed to by the respondents' impugned conduct, and therefore did not justify revoking or varying the earlier security for costs order. Further security for costs after the first day of trial was also refused at this stage because the usual practice is to leave that question to the trial judge, particularly given the indicated narrowing of issues for trial.

Court Disposition

Applicants granted leave to further amend the application and statement of claim; applicants' motion otherwise dismissed; second and third respondents' motion for further security dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicants have leave further to amend the application and the statement of claim herein and that such further amended application and statement of claim be filed and served by 4.00 pm on 12 May 2005.' 'The respondents file and serve by 20 May 2005 their defences to the amended statement of claim referred to...