Endormer Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 510

Endormer Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 510

In circumstances where there is a substantial contest as to whether security for costs should be ordered and where the issues overlap with matters to be considered on appeal, the jurisdiction to determine the application should more properly be exercised by the Full Court assigned to the appeal.

Parties
First Appellant: Endormer Pty Limited (In Liquidation); 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
20 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Prior to Full Court Hearing
Outcome
Matter stood over for hearing by the Full Court Bench.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interlocutory Applications, Appellate Procedure
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Interlocutory Applications 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Endormer Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the third appellant
  2. 2 Whether a single Judge or the Full Court should determine the interlocutory application for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

In circumstances where there is a substantial contest as to whether security for costs should be ordered and where the issues overlap with matters to be considered on appeal, the jurisdiction to determine the application should more properly be exercised by the Full Court assigned to the appeal.

Court Disposition

Matter stood over for hearing by the Full Court Bench.

Orders

  • The matter be stood over for a hearing by the Full Court Bench.