Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited v Bank of China [2012] FCA 701

Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Limited v Bank of China [2012] FCA 701

Given the applicants' failure to comply with orders for further security for costs, absence of any explanation or evidence for non-compliance, and balancing the prejudice to parties, it is appropriate to make self-executing orders for dismissal if security is not provided by the specified date.

Parties
First Applicant: Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Ltd ACN 110 336 966; Second Applicant: Energreen Wind Systems Pty Ltd ACN 100 729 842; First Respondent: Bank of China Limited ARBN 002 979 955; Second Respondent: Commonwealth Bank of Australia ACN 123 123 124
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Self Executing Dismissal Orders Due to Non Compliance With Security for Costs Orders
Outcome
Self-executing orders made: proceedings against each respondent to be dismissed with costs unless security for costs provided by 9:00 am on 13 July 2012; costs of interlocutory applications awarded to respondents; matter listed for directions on 13 July 2012.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Orders for Dismissal for Non Compliance, Practice and Procedure, Self Executing Orders
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Orders for Dismissal for Non Compliance Practice and Procedure Self Executing Orders

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

Parties

Strategic Financial and Project Services Pty Ltd ACN 110 336 966

First Applicant

Energreen Wind Systems Pty Ltd ACN 100 729 842

Second Applicant

Bank of China Limited ARBN 002 979 955

First Respondent

Commonwealth Bank of Australia ACN 123 123 124

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Application for Self Executing Dismissal Orders Due to Non Compliance With Security for Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be dismissed for non-compliance with security for costs orders
  2. 2 Appropriateness of self-executing orders for dismissal for non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicants' failure to comply with orders for further security for costs, absence of any explanation or evidence for non-compliance, and balancing the prejudice to parties, it is appropriate to make self-executing orders for dismissal if security is not provided by the specified date.

Court Disposition

Self-executing orders made: proceedings against each respondent to be dismissed with costs unless security for costs provided by 9:00 am on 13 July 2012; costs of interlocutory applications awarded to respondents; matter listed for directions on 13 July 2012.

Orders

  • If the applicants do not, by 9.00 am on 13 July 2012, comply with order 1 of the orders made by Robertson J on 1 May 2012, the proceeding against the first respondent be dismissed, with the applicants to pay the first respondent's costs.
  • If the applicants do not, by 9.00 am on 13 July 2012, comply with order 1 of the orders made by Robertson J on 30 April 2012, the proceeding against the second respondent be dismissed, with the applicants to pay the second respondent's costs.