Asden Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Dinoris [2017] FCA 37

Asden Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Dinoris [2017] FCA 37

Security for costs should be ordered because Asden conceded the appropriateness of security and, in any event, was in liquidation and clearly impecunious, with no relevant factors shown against an order and prospects treated as neutral. The respondents' claimed $155,000 was excessive for a one day appeal, while the appellant's proposed figure was affected by arbitrary allocation between appeal and cross-appeal and disputed assumptions about counsel. Having regard to both costs reports and excluding or reducing excessive or unnecessary amounts, the appropriate security was $80,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs of an Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part; security ordered in the sum of $80,000 and appeal to be stayed if security is not provided.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs on Appeal' 'corporation in Liquidation' 'quantum of Security for Costs' "directors' and Officers' Duties"]
['corporations and Corporate Insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs on Appeal' 'corporation in Liquidation' 'quantum of Security for Costs' "directors' and Officers' Duties"]

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; Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs of an Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order the appellant to give security for the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'What quantum of security for costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should be ordered because Asden conceded the appropriateness of security and, in any event, was in liquidation and clearly impecunious, with no relevant factors shown against an order and prospects treated as neutral. The respondents' claimed $155,000 was excessive for a one day appeal, while the appellant's proposed figure was affected by arbitrary allocation between appeal and cross-appeal and disputed assumptions about counsel. Having regard to both costs reports and excluding or reducing excessive or unnecessary amounts, the appropriate security was $80,000.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part; security ordered in the sum of $80,000 and appeal to be stayed if security is not provided.

Orders

  • ["Within 14 days of the date of these orders the appellant give security for the respondents' costs of the appeal in the sum of $80,000 by paying the money into Court or providing to the Queensland District Registrar of this Court an unconditional bank guarantee from an Australian owned bank in a form acceptable to...