Jesse James v Nolmont Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 010 874 834) [2007] FCA 1604

Jesse James v Nolmont Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 010 874 834) [2007] FCA 1604

The applicants, being foreign with no assets in the jurisdiction and being the moving parties, should provide security for costs, as the risks to the respondent outweigh countervailing considerations such as the existence of a cross-claim, the respondent’s impecuniosity, or the bona fide and arguable nature of the applicants’ case.

Parties
First Applicant / First Cross Respondent: Jesse James; Second Applicant / Second Cross Respondent: West Coast Choppers Inc; Third Applicant: Vanilla Gorilla L.P.; Respondent / Cross Claimant: Nolmont Pty Ltd (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 010 874 834)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against applicants in the sum of $90,000, to be provided within 28 days, with further procedural directions as set out in the orders.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Cross Claim, Impecuniosity, Foreign Applicants, Discretion in Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Cross Claim Impecuniosity Foreign Applicants Discretion in Security for Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jesse James

First Applicant / First Cross Respondent

West Coast Choppers Inc

Second Applicant / Second Cross Respondent

Vanilla Gorilla L.P.

Third Applicant

Nolmont Pty Ltd (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 010 874 834)

Respondent / Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against foreign applicants without assets in the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a cross-claim by the respondent militates against ordering security
  3. 3 Whether the impecuniosity of the respondent is a relevant countervailing factor

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, being foreign with no assets in the jurisdiction and being the moving parties, should provide security for costs, as the risks to the respondent outweigh countervailing considerations such as the existence of a cross-claim, the respondent’s impecuniosity, or the bona fide and arguable nature of the applicants’ case.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against applicants in the sum of $90,000, to be provided within 28 days, with further procedural directions as set out in the orders.

Orders

  • Applicants to provide security in the sum of $90,000 in an acceptable form for the respondent's costs up to and including the first day of the trial.
  • Security to be provided within 28 days, otherwise the application to be stayed until further order.