Lawrance v Commonwealth [2008] FCA 417

Lawrance v Commonwealth [2008] FCA 417

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse a stay of the costs order and to order security for costs given the limited prospects of success of the appeal, appellant's impecuniosity, likelihood that costs orders would go unsatisfied, and the interest of justice in protecting respondents who have succeeded at first instance. Quantum and timing of security were fixed to accommodate appellant's financial position but with stays in the event of non-payment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Security for Costs Application and Stay of Costs Order Pending Appeal
Outcome
Appellant's application for stay of costs dismissed. Security for costs ordered. Proceedings stayed if security not provided. Appellant to pay costs of motions and applications.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'stay of Costs Order' 'appeal' 'disability Discrimination' 'sex Discrimination']
['practice and Procedure' 'discrimination Law'] ['security for Costs' 'stay of Costs Order' 'appeal' 'disability Discrimination' 'sex Discrimination']

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

Appeal / Security for Costs Application and Stay of Costs Order Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order made by the Federal Magistrate should be stayed pending appeal' 'Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for costs of the appeal' 'Quantum and timing of security for costs' 'Prospects of success of the appeal' 'Effect of security order on impecunious appellant']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse a stay of the costs order and to order security for costs given the limited prospects of success of the appeal, appellant's impecuniosity, likelihood that costs orders would go unsatisfied, and the interest of justice in protecting respondents who have succeeded at first instance. Quantum and timing of security were fixed to accommodate appellant's financial position but with stays in the event of non-payment.

Court Disposition

Appellant's application for stay of costs dismissed. Security for costs ordered. Proceedings stayed if security not provided. Appellant to pay costs of motions and applications.

Orders

  • ["Appellant's stay application dismissed." 'Appellant to provide $10,000 security for costs to First and Third to Thirteenth Respondents: $5,000 within 21 days, $5,000 21 days before hearing.' 'Proceedings against First and Third to Thirteenth Respondents stayed if security not provided within time specified.'...