Cartez Pty Ltd v Bakers Delight [1998] FCA 539

Cartez Pty Ltd v Bakers Delight [1998] FCA 539

The respondent established by credible evidence that there was reason to believe the applicant would be unable to pay the respondent's costs if the respondent succeeded. The applicant's impecuniosity carried little weight because no evidence was given about the means of Mr and Mrs Williamson, who stood to benefit from the litigation as shareholders, directors and specified beneficiaries of the trust, and the applicant gave only bare assertions that security would terminate the proceeding and that its impecuniosity resulted from the respondent's conduct. The risk of non-payment was very high, there was no oppression, delay, lack of bona fides in the defence, or unusual public interest, so...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in a Proceeding Alleging Breach of S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Seeking Damages / Interlocutory Application by the Respondent for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part; further hearing adjourned for consideration of further security.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporation Plaintiff' 'impecuniosity' 'trustee Company' 'judicial Discretion' 'amount of Security']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'trade Practices'] ['security for Costs' 'corporation Plaintiff' 'impecuniosity' 'trustee Company' 'judicial Discretion' 'amount of Security']

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

Application for Security for Costs in a Proceeding Alleging Breach of S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Seeking Damages / Interlocutory Application by the Respondent for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether credible testimony gave reason to believe that the applicant corporation would be unable to pay the respondent's costs if the respondent succeeded in its defence" 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs' 'Whether an order for security would effectively prevent the applicant from continuing the proceeding' "Whether the applicant's impecuniosity was a consequence of the respondent's alleged conduct" 'What amount of security should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent established by credible evidence that there was reason to believe the applicant would be unable to pay the respondent's costs if the respondent succeeded. The applicant's impecuniosity carried little weight because no evidence was given about the means of Mr and Mrs Williamson, who stood to benefit from the litigation as shareholders, directors and specified beneficiaries of the trust, and the applicant gave only bare assertions that security would terminate the proceeding and that its impecuniosity resulted from the respondent's conduct. The risk of non-payment was very high, there was no oppression, delay, lack of bona fides in the defence, or unusual public interest, so...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part; further hearing adjourned for consideration of further security.

Orders

  • ["Within 30 days the applicant provide security for the respondent's costs up to trial in the sum of $30,000 in a form acceptable to the Registrar." 'If the applicant fails to comply with Order 1 this proceeding be thereupon stayed until such security is provided.' 'The further hearing of the application for...