Clayton Robert Croker v Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Limited; Clayton Robert Croker v Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 1242

Clayton Robert Croker v Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Limited; Clayton Robert Croker v Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 1242

The appellant failed to show any House v The King error in Malpass AsJ's findings or exercise of discretion. The factual findings about the knowingly incorrect address for service and intent to deceive were supported, the proceedings had no reasonable prospects of success, the appellant had numerous unsatisfied costs orders, the respondent was not acting oppressively, impecuniosity was not shown to arise from the respondent's alleged conduct, and the appellant gave no evidence of means to establish stultification.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Security for Costs / Appeal From Malpass as J's Dismissal of Notices of Motion Seeking Review of an Assistant Registrar's Order Requiring Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'discretionary Factors' 'address for Service' 'appellate Intervention in Discretionary Decisions']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'discretionary Factors' 'address for Service' 'appellate Intervention in 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

Appeal Concerning Security for Costs / Appeal From Malpass as J's Dismissal of Notices of Motion Seeking Review of an Assistant Registrar's Order Requiring Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant demonstrated error in Malpass AsJ's factual findings or discretionary decision sufficient to warrant appellate intervention" "Whether an order for security for costs was justified in light of the appellant's address for service, prospects of success, unpaid costs orders, impecuniosity, and alleged stultifying effect"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to show any House v The King error in Malpass AsJ's findings or exercise of discretion. The factual findings about the knowingly incorrect address for service and intent to deceive were supported, the proceedings had no reasonable prospects of success, the appellant had numerous unsatisfied costs orders, the respondent was not acting oppressively, impecuniosity was not shown to arise from the respondent's alleged conduct, and the appellant gave no evidence of means to establish stultification.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs on this appeal."]