Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Limited v Rafferty [2010] FCA 1179

Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Limited v Rafferty [2010] FCA 1179

Having regard to the appellants' lack of assets, risk to respondents of non-recovery of costs, absence of evidence that security for costs would stifle the appeal, and no other factors against it, security for costs should be ordered in favour of the respondents, in specified sums, with the appeal stayed until compliance.

Parties
First Appellant: Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Limited; Second Appellant: Time 2000 Operations (Australia) Pty Limited; Third Appellant: Embleton Limited; Fourth Appellant: Stephen Gerard Donovan; First Respondent: Patrick Campbell Rafferty; Second Respondent: Santora Holdings Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Karaville Holdings Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: Madgwicks
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Security for Costs Application Prior to Substantive Full Court Hearing
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; appeal stayed pending satisfaction of security orders
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appellate Procedure
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appellate Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Limited

First Appellant

Time 2000 Operations (Australia) Pty Limited

Second Appellant

Embleton Limited

Third Appellant

Stephen Gerard Donovan

Fourth Appellant

Patrick Campbell Rafferty

First Respondent

Santora Holdings Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Karaville Holdings Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Madgwicks

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Security for Costs Application Prior to Substantive Full Court Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the appellants for the costs of the appeal
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the appellants' lack of assets, risk to respondents of non-recovery of costs, absence of evidence that security for costs would stifle the appeal, and no other factors against it, security for costs should be ordered in favour of the respondents, in specified sums, with the appeal stayed until compliance.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; appeal stayed pending satisfaction of security orders

Orders

  • Appellants to pay into Court by 29 November 2010: $40,000 as security for costs for the first, second and third respondents; $25,000 as security for costs for the fourth respondent
  • Alternatively, appellants to provide security in other forms acceptable to the respondents for the stated amounts