Capital Webworks Pty Ltd v Adultshop.com.limited [2002] FCA 1420

Capital Webworks Pty Ltd v Adultshop.com.limited [2002] FCA 1420

The applicant did not establish a material change of circumstances or discovery of new material that could not reasonably have been put before the Court on the earlier application. The discovered information about awareness of the value of the applicant's alleged right was not evidence giving rise to the proposed new causes of action. Any public interest was outweighed by the applicant's financial circumstances, the absence of evidence about the means of those standing behind the company, and the failure to establish that the third respondent's alleged actions alone caused the applicant's impecuniosity. The discretion to set aside the further security order was therefore not properly open...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Costs; Security for Costs / Applicant's Notice of Motion Dated 29 August 2002 Seeking to Set Aside the Further Security Order Under O 28 R 5 of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'variation or Setting Aside of Security for Costs Order' 'material Change of Circumstances' 'new Material' 'impecunious Corporate Applicant' 'public Interest Litigation']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'variation or Setting Aside of Security for Costs Order' 'material Change of Circumstances' 'new Material' 'impecunious Corporate Applicant' 'public Interest Litigation']

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

Costs; Security for Costs / Applicant's Notice of Motion Dated 29 August 2002 Seeking to Set Aside the Further Security Order Under O 28 R 5 of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the further security order should be set aside or varied under O 28 r 5(2) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the applicant established a material change of circumstances or discovery of new material which could not reasonably have been put before the Court on the earlier security for costs application.' 'Whether proposed new causes of action, alleged causation of impecuniosity, difficulty borrowing funds, and asserted public interest justified setting aside the further security order.' 'Whether the absence of evidence about the means of persons standing behind the applicant affected the discretion to set aside the order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish a material change of circumstances or discovery of new material that could not reasonably have been put before the Court on the earlier application. The discovered information about awareness of the value of the applicant's alleged right was not evidence giving rise to the proposed new causes of action. Any public interest was outweighed by the applicant's financial circumstances, the absence of evidence about the means of those standing behind the company, and the failure to establish that the third respondent's alleged actions alone caused the applicant's impecuniosity. The discretion to set aside the further security order was therefore not properly open...

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion dated 29 August 2002 be dismissed." "The applicant pay the third respondent's costs on the motion."]