Capital Webworks Pty Ltd v Adultshop.Com.Limited [2002] FCA 389

The interests of justice and the principle of finality do not support exercising the Court’s discretion to vacate the springing order at the request of the third respondent; no exceptional circumstances were found to warrant such a step, as costs and delays flowing from the appeal process do not by themselves suffice and the proper avenue for addressing alleged prejudgment or related concerns is via the appellate process already commenced.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 04 April 2002
Procedural Posture: Motion / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside/vacate Orders
Outcome: Third respondent's motion to set aside/vacate order refused.
Legal Topics: ['setting Aside Orders' 'interlocutory Orders' 'finality of Litigation' 'security for Costs']

['civil Procedure'] ['setting Aside Orders' 'interlocutory Orders' 'finality of Litigation' 'security for Costs']

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

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside/vacate Orders

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the Court should set aside (vacate) a springing interlocutory order on the application of the party in whose favour the order was made' 'Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the exercise of discretion to vacate such an order']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Third respondent's motion to set aside/vacate order refused.

Orders

['The motion of the third respondent to set aside order 1 made on 28 February 2002 be refused.' 'Counsel be heard as to costs.']