Angas Securities Limited v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 868

Angas Securities Limited v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 868

Having regard to the strength of Angas’ claim and the lack of evidence currently before the Court demonstrating the strength of Savills’ defences, the prospect of Savills suffering the detriment on which it relies for the application is not sufficiently strong to justify ordering security. The application for security is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Decision Before Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'preliminary Evaluation of Merits' 'breach of Contract' 'negligence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial Law' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'preliminary Evaluation of Merits' 'breach of Contract' 'negligence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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 Decision Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for costs' "Whether the merits of the applicant's case and strength of defences affect the exercise of discretion for ordering security"]

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the strength of Angas’ claim and the lack of evidence currently before the Court demonstrating the strength of Savills’ defences, the prospect of Savills suffering the detriment on which it relies for the application is not sufficiently strong to justify ordering security. The application for security is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for security for costs made by the Respondent on 11 May 2017 is dismissed.']