Austcorp International Limited v Owers (No 2) [2009] FCA 1112
In the absence of any attempt by the appellant to explain why security for costs was not provided as ordered, nor any evidence as to whether or when it might be provided, the proper exercise of the Court's discretion under s 56(4) is to dismiss the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Hearing on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Non Provision of Security for Costs
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['security for Costs' 'dismissal of Appeal' 'federal Court Procedure']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing on Application to Dismiss Appeal for Non Provision of Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Should the appeal be dismissed pursuant to s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for failure to provide security for costs?' 'Was there justification for an adjournment or non-compliance with the order to provide security?']
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of any attempt by the appellant to explain why security for costs was not provided as ordered, nor any evidence as to whether or when it might be provided, the proper exercise of the Court's discretion under s 56(4) is to dismiss the appeal.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Pursuant to s 56(4) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the appeal is dismissed.' 'The appellant pay the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed on 23 September 2009 and of the appeal.' 'To the extent necessary, the respondents be released from the undertaking given...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment