Cameron, B.A. & Anor v. Rural Press Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 60

Cameron, B.A. & Anor v. Rural Press Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 60

The court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs as imposing such orders would stifle the litigation, both applicants are impecunious and Miss Cameron, a natural person, is a necessary party to the proceedings. Accordingly, the company co-applicant should not be subjected to an order for security.

Parties
First Applicant: Barbara Ann Cameron; Second Applicant: Gamester Pty Limited; First Respondent: Rural Press Limited; Second Respondent: John Lindsay Parker; Third Respondent: Timothy Roy Starkey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Hearing on Notices of Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Applications for security for costs dismissed; costs awarded to applicants.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Necessary Parties, Joinder of Parties, Trade Practices Act
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Impecuniosity Necessary Parties Joinder of Parties Trade Practices Act

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Ann Cameron

First Applicant

Gamester Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Rural Press Limited

First Respondent

John Lindsay Parker

Second Respondent

Timothy Roy Starkey

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Hearing on Notices of Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against applicants, one a company and one a natural person, both impecunious
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle the litigation
  3. 3 Whether a natural person is a necessary party to the proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs as imposing such orders would stifle the litigation, both applicants are impecunious and Miss Cameron, a natural person, is a necessary party to the proceedings. Accordingly, the company co-applicant should not be subjected to an order for security.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs dismissed; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Notices of Motion for security for costs filed on 10 February 1987 and 18 December 1987 are dismissed.
  • Respondents to the principal proceeding to pay the costs of the applicants to the principal proceeding of the motions.