Skyring v Sweeney [1999] FCA 61

Skyring v Sweeney [1999] FCA 61

Applying s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and having regard to the broad discretion recognised in Bell Wholesale, security for costs was appropriate because Mr Skyring was an undischarged bankrupt, there were a number of costs orders against him, and without security he would in effect have a free appeal, which would be intrinsically unfair. The appeal should also not be heard with the separate Australian Electoral Commission matter because of practical inconvenience and because the security for costs application applied only in QG 162 of 1998.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Notices of Motion, Including Security for Costs and Related Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; appeal stayed pending provision of security; notice of appeal against the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited struck out; Mr Skyring's motions refused.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'stay of Appeal' 'appeal Procedure' 'interlocutory Motions']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['security for Costs' 'stay of Appeal' 'appeal Procedure' 'interlocutory Motions']

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 / Notices of Motion, Including Security for Costs and Related Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal in QG 162 of 1998 should be heard at the same time as an appeal involving Mr Skyring and the Australian Electoral Commission.' 'Whether Mr Skyring should be ordered to provide security for costs in the appeal.' 'Whether the appeal should be stayed pending provision of security for costs.' 'Whether the relief sought by Mr Skyring in his notices of motion should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, and having regard to the broad discretion recognised in Bell Wholesale, security for costs was appropriate because Mr Skyring was an undischarged bankrupt, there were a number of costs orders against him, and without security he would in effect have a free appeal, which would be intrinsically unfair. The appeal should also not be heard with the separate Australian Electoral Commission matter because of practical inconvenience and because the security for costs application applied only in QG 162 of 1998.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; appeal stayed pending provision of security; notice of appeal against the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited struck out; Mr Skyring's motions refused.

Orders

  • ['In relation to the notice of motion brought by the first and second respondents on 8 December 1998, the notice of appeal against the first respondent (the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited) be struck out.' 'The appellant provide security for the costs to be incurred by the respondent in the appeal QG...