Endormer Pty Limited (in liq) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited [2001] FCA 548

Endormer Pty Limited (in liq) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited [2001] FCA 548

The application for security for costs was refused because of the respondents' significant delay in bringing the motion, which undermined the interests of justice at this advanced point in the appeal process.

Parties
First Appellant: Endormer Pty Limited (in liq); Second Appellant: Kwikday Pty Limited; Third Appellant: Glenn Robert Jarrett; Fourth Appellant: David Colin Paterson; Fifth Appellant: Jarrett Holdings Pty Limited; Sixth Appellant: Alinbow Pty Limited; First Respondent: Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited; Second Respondent: Peter James Hedge
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs (appellate Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application—motion Decided in Course of Appeal
Outcome
The motion for security for costs was dismissed and costs of the motion were reserved.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Federal Court Procedure, Appeals, Case Management
Practice and Procedure Security for Costs Federal Court Procedure Appeals Case Management

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Endormer Pty Limited (in liq)

First Appellant

Kwikday Pty Limited

Second Appellant

Glenn Robert Jarrett

Third Appellant

David Colin Paterson

Fourth Appellant

Jarrett Holdings Pty Limited

Fifth Appellant

Alinbow Pty Limited

Sixth Appellant

Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited

First Respondent

Peter James Hedge

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Security for Costs (appellate Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application—motion Decided in Course of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered on appeal given delay in bringing the application

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was refused because of the respondents' significant delay in bringing the motion, which undermined the interests of justice at this advanced point in the appeal process.

Court Disposition

The motion for security for costs was dismissed and costs of the motion were reserved.

Orders

  • The motion be dismissed.
  • The costs of the motion be reserved.