Channel Island Seafood Pty Ltd v Bryjed Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 983

Channel Island Seafood Pty Ltd v Bryjed Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 983

The corporate applicant lacked available resources to meet a possible costs order because of its substantial liability to Interior Tech and net equity deficit, while the interests standing behind it could benefit from and fund the proceeding; however, the amount of security was kept modest because some plant and equipment remained on the first respondent's leased premises, the personal applicant had no present plan to call up the indebtedness, and there was little evidence of likely costs. No security was ordered against the personal applicant because he was a natural person with a significant excess of assets over liabilities and there was no reason to depart from the general reluctance...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Notice of Motion Dated 7 May 2002 Heard and Determined on 11 July 2002
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against the first applicant only; no order for security for costs made against the second applicant.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'discretionary Considerations' 'corporate Applicant Impecuniosity' 'security for Costs Against Natural Person']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'discretionary Considerations' 'corporate Applicant Impecuniosity' 'security for Costs Against Natural Person']

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

Application for Security for Costs / Notice of Motion Dated 7 May 2002 Heard and Determined on 11 July 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against the corporate applicant.' 'Whether security for costs should be ordered against the personal applicant.' 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered if security was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The corporate applicant lacked available resources to meet a possible costs order because of its substantial liability to Interior Tech and net equity deficit, while the interests standing behind it could benefit from and fund the proceeding; however, the amount of security was kept modest because some plant and equipment remained on the first respondent's leased premises, the personal applicant had no present plan to call up the indebtedness, and there was little evidence of likely costs. No security was ordered against the personal applicant because he was a natural person with a significant excess of assets over liabilities and there was no reason to depart from the general reluctance...

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against the first applicant only; no order for security for costs made against the second applicant.

Orders

  • ['The first applicant Channel Island Seafood Pty Ltd pay into Court the sum of $15,000 within 21 days of the date of this Order by way of security for the costs of the respondents Bryjed Pty Ltd and Ronald Thomas Trezise.' 'Liberty is given to the parties to apply to vary this order.']