A.C.N. 002 023 609 Pty Limited v Meware Pty Limited [2001] FCA 650

A.C.N. 002 023 609 Pty Limited v Meware Pty Limited [2001] FCA 650

Security for costs was ordered because the respondents would otherwise be unprotected as to their costs, the applicant accepted it could not pay any adverse costs order, and those standing behind the applicant (the son) were not shown to be impecunious; requiring security would not effectively terminate the proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory – Application for Security Determined Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporate Impecuniosity' 'exercise of Discretionary Power Under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 S 56(1)']
['practice and Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'corporate Impecuniosity' 'exercise of Discretionary Power Under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 S 56(1)']

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 / Interlocutory – Application for Security Determined Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56(1)' "Whether the applicant's inability to pay respondents' costs is a relevant consideration" 'Whether effective termination of litigation by order for security is a relevant consideration' 'Whether impecuniosity of the persons standing behind the corporate applicant is relevant' "Whether any alleged wrongdoing by the respondents causing the applicant's impecuniosity should be considered" "What weight should be given to the strength of the applicant's case and the existence of a public interest"]

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the respondents would otherwise be unprotected as to their costs, the applicant accepted it could not pay any adverse costs order, and those standing behind the applicant (the son) were not shown to be impecunious; requiring security would not effectively terminate the proceeding.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is required to provide security for the respondents' costs in the sum of $15,000 down to the stage at which discovery has been completed and the respondents have considered the applicant's affidavit evidence." 'The parties are to bring in agreed short minutes of orders; failing agreement, the matter...