Ritson v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2017] FCA 888

Ritson v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2017] FCA 888

Security for costs was warranted because the grounds of appeal repeated issues already considered and rejected by the Federal Circuit Court and had poor prospects, the appellant was of limited financial means with a heavily mortgaged asset and an unpaid costs order below, there was a real risk any adverse costs order would not be satisfied, the appellant's impecuniosity was more persuasively attributable to failed investments and legal costs than to the respondents' conduct, and the matter did not raise a substantive issue of law or public importance sufficient to refuse security. However, the $115,300 sought was excessive because security is not intended to provide a complete indemnity,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Federal Court Appeal From Ritson V Director of Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2016] FCCA 2923 and Ritson V Director of Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (no.2) [2016] FCCA 3466
Outcome
The respondents' interlocutory application for security for costs was granted in part; security was ordered in the amount of $25,000, the appeal was stayed until security was given, and the appeal was to be dismissed if security was not provided by the specified deadline.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs on Appeal' 'stay of Appeal Pending Security' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'costs Orders' 'judicial Review of Employment Termination']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'administrative Law'] ['security for Costs on Appeal' 'stay of Appeal Pending Security' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'costs Orders' 'judicial Review of Employment Termination']

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

Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Federal Court Appeal From Ritson V Director of Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2016] FCCA 2923 and Ritson V Director of Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (no.2) [2016] FCCA 3466

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should be ordered to give security for the respondents' costs of the appeal under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 36.09 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." "Whether the appellant's poor prospects of success, limited financial means and unpaid costs order below justified security for costs notwithstanding the risk that security would stifle the appeal." 'What amount of security for costs was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was warranted because the grounds of appeal repeated issues already considered and rejected by the Federal Circuit Court and had poor prospects, the appellant was of limited financial means with a heavily mortgaged asset and an unpaid costs order below, there was a real risk any adverse costs order would not be satisfied, the appellant's impecuniosity was more persuasively attributable to failed investments and legal costs than to the respondents' conduct, and the matter did not raise a substantive issue of law or public importance sufficient to refuse security. However, the $115,300 sought was excessive because security is not intended to provide a complete indemnity,...

Court Disposition

The respondents' interlocutory application for security for costs was granted in part; security was ordered in the amount of $25,000, the appeal was stayed until security was given, and the appeal was to be dismissed if security was not provided by the specified deadline.

Orders

  • ["The appellant give security for the costs of the appeal in the amount of $25,000, such amount to be paid by 4.00 pm on 6 September 2017 by way of electronic funds transfer into the trust account of the respondents' legal representatives." 'The appeal be stayed until security is given, in accordance with order 1.'...