Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1622

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1622

In the particular circumstances, including the applicants' extensive litigation history and outstanding costs orders, their likelihood of being unable to pay the respondents' costs if the appeal failed, the limited prospects of success apparent from the materials, and the availability of SSAT merits review for issues concerning recovery or waiver of the debt, it would be unjust to require the respondents to contest the same issues a second time without some security. Security of $2000 was appropriate because it tested the bona fides of the appeal without purporting to indemnify the respondents for all likely appeal costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Costs – Security for Costs / Notice of Motion by Respondents for Security for Costs in Respect of an Application for Leave to Appeal or Appeal From Judgments of Dowsett J
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; application for leave to appeal to be stayed if security is not provided by the specified time; costs of the motion awarded to the respondents on the appeal.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs on Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'extensive Litigants' 'prospects of Success of Appeal' 'availability of Merits Review Before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal' 'recovery or Waiver of Family Tax Benefit Debt']
['costs' 'appellate Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'social Security and Family Assistance'] ['security for Costs on Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'extensive Litigants' 'prospects of Success of Appeal' 'availability of Merits Review Before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal' 'recovery or Waiver of Family Tax Benefit Debt']

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

Costs – Security for Costs / Notice of Motion by Respondents for Security for Costs in Respect of an Application for Leave to Appeal or Appeal From Judgments of Dowsett J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether security for costs should be ordered in respect of the applicants' appeal or application for leave to appeal." "Whether the applicants' extensive litigation history and outstanding costs orders were relevant to security for costs." 'Whether the prospects of success of the appeal supported ordering security.' "Whether the applicants' choice not to pursue merits review before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal was relevant." "Whether the applicants were likely to be able to pay the respondents' costs if the appeal failed." 'What amount and consequence of security should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

In the particular circumstances, including the applicants' extensive litigation history and outstanding costs orders, their likelihood of being unable to pay the respondents' costs if the appeal failed, the limited prospects of success apparent from the materials, and the availability of SSAT merits review for issues concerning recovery or waiver of the debt, it would be unjust to require the respondents to contest the same issues a second time without some security. Security of $2000 was appropriate because it tested the bona fides of the appeal without purporting to indemnify the respondents for all likely appeal costs.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; application for leave to appeal to be stayed if security is not provided by the specified time; costs of the motion awarded to the respondents on the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The respondents on the motion provide security for costs in a form satisfactory to the Registrar in the sum of $2000.' 'Unless that security is provided by 4pm Tuesday 11 February 2003, the application for leave to appeal be stayed.' 'In respect of the costs of the motion for security for costs, the applicants on...