Warner v Hung, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2013] FCA 1071

Warner v Hung, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2013] FCA 1071

The interlocutory application was dismissed because the security for costs had been paid and the application was objectively premature. No order as to costs was made because, although the plaintiffs should have answered correspondence more responsibly, the application was based on an earlier order drafted by the defendants' side and was premature. The oral adjournment application was rejected because the plaintiffs did not establish an appropriate basis for adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Proceedings in the Matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Liquidation) Involving an Interlocutory Application Concerning Security for Costs and an Oral Adjournment Application / Interlocutory Application Dated 26 September 2013 and Oral Application for Adjournment Heard on 5 November 2013
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed; no order as to costs; oral adjournment application rejected; plaintiffs ordered to file and serve evidence by 19 December 2013.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Interlocutory Application' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'adjournment']
['costs' 'practice and Procedure' 'corporations and Insolvency'] ['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Interlocutory Application' 'costs of Interlocutory Application' 'adjournment']

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

Proceedings in the Matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Liquidation) Involving an Interlocutory Application Concerning Security for Costs and an Oral Adjournment Application / Interlocutory Application Dated 26 September 2013 and Oral Application for Adjournment Heard on 5 November 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interlocutory application filed by the sixth, eighth, ninth and eleventh defendants seeking dismissal should be dismissed after security for costs had been paid.' 'Whether any order as to costs should be made in respect of the interlocutory application.' "Whether the plaintiffs' oral application to adjourn the proceedings for four to six weeks should be granted."]

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application was dismissed because the security for costs had been paid and the application was objectively premature. No order as to costs was made because, although the plaintiffs should have answered correspondence more responsibly, the application was based on an earlier order drafted by the defendants' side and was premature. The oral adjournment application was rejected because the plaintiffs did not establish an appropriate basis for adjournment.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed; no order as to costs; oral adjournment application rejected; plaintiffs ordered to file and serve evidence by 19 December 2013.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application dated 26 September 2013 filed by the 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th defendants be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs.' 'The plaintiffs file and serve all evidence on which they intend to rely in the substantive proceedings on or before 19 December 2013.' 'The matter be listed for...