Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network, GP (No 2) [2010] FCA 273

Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network, GP (No 2) [2010] FCA 273

Security for costs was refused because, in light of Federal Court Rules O 52 r 20, Television Food Network, GP had not shown that the general rule against security for costs on appeal should be displaced. The evidence of impecuniosity was not compelling, the unpaid costs were connected with the first instance orders, Mr Lawrence had offered an undertaking to the Court in relation to the appeal costs, and an order for security would likely put an arguable appeal seriously at risk.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Notice of Motion Dated 2 February 2010
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; security for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs on Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'undertakings as to Costs' 'federal Court Appellate Procedure']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs on Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'undertakings as to Costs' 'federal Court 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Notice of Motion Dated 2 February 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeals in the amount of $38,000." "Whether the appellant's alleged impecuniosity justified security for costs." 'Whether an undertaking by Mr Paul Lloyd Lawrence sufficiently addressed the risk of non-payment of costs.' 'Whether the appeal raised a matter of public importance relevant to the discretion to order security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused because, in light of Federal Court Rules O 52 r 20, Television Food Network, GP had not shown that the general rule against security for costs on appeal should be displaced. The evidence of impecuniosity was not compelling, the unpaid costs were connected with the first instance orders, Mr Lawrence had offered an undertaking to the Court in relation to the appeal costs, and an order for security would likely put an arguable appeal seriously at risk.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; security for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is dismissed.' 'The respondent on the motion, the appellant in the appeals, have its costs of the motion as its costs in the appeals.']