Croker v Sydney Institute of TAFE (State of New South Wales) [2003] FCA 942

Croker v Sydney Institute of TAFE (State of New South Wales) [2003] FCA 942

Security for costs was appropriate because the applicant had not provided a compliant address for service and had misstated the address, had not established good prospects of success on the leave application or appeal, had no real prospect of satisfying an adverse costs order, was impecunious for reasons not arising from the first respondent's alleged conduct, had an extensive litigation history with unpaid costs orders, and the $5000 sought was reasonable; those factors outweighed the likelihood that the order would prevent him from proceeding despite the Court accepting for this purpose that he had a reasonably arguable claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application in an Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Disability Discrimination Act Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the First Respondent
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; proceedings to be stayed unless security is provided; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'address for Service' 'leave to Appeal' 'disability Discrimination' 'impecuniosity' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'discrimination Law'] ['security for Costs' 'address for Service' 'leave to Appeal' 'disability Discrimination' 'impecuniosity' '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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application in an Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Disability Discrimination Act Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the First Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for the first respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal." "Whether the applicant's stated post office address complied with the Federal Court Rules requirements for an address for service." "Whether the applicant's prospects of success, impecuniosity, litigation history, unpaid costs orders, public interest considerations and potential stifling of the proceeding justified or opposed security for costs." 'Whether the amount of $5000 sought as security was reasonable.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was appropriate because the applicant had not provided a compliant address for service and had misstated the address, had not established good prospects of success on the leave application or appeal, had no real prospect of satisfying an adverse costs order, was impecunious for reasons not arising from the first respondent's alleged conduct, had an extensive litigation history with unpaid costs orders, and the $5000 sought was reasonable; those factors outweighed the likelihood that the order would prevent him from proceeding despite the Court accepting for this purpose that he had a reasonably arguable claim.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; proceedings to be stayed unless security is provided; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to provide security for costs of the first respondent in the sum of $5000 on or before 6 October 2003.' 'Unless the applicant provides the security in order 1 in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, the proceedings are to be stayed until further order.' "The applicant is to pay the first...