Cosdean Investments Pty Ltd v Football Federation Australia Limited (No 3) [2007] FCA 766

Cosdean Investments Pty Ltd v Football Federation Australia Limited (No 3) [2007] FCA 766

Because the applicant had notice of the motions, had not complied with the security for costs orders, had not appeared or provided evidence explaining non-compliance or showing any real prospect of funding the proceedings, and the respondents were entitled to finality after incurring significant costs, the appropriate course was to make orders dismissing the proceedings if security was not paid by 17 August 2007, with liberty to apply before dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Notices of Motion to Dismiss Proceedings for Failure to Provide Security for Costs / Part Heard Proceedings Adjourned to a Date to Be Fixed; Respondents' Motions Following Non Compliance With Security for Costs Orders
Outcome
Proceedings to be dismissed unless the applicant pays security for costs by 17 August 2007; costs and payment out orders made, with leave to apply to vary or discharge orders.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'dismissal for Non Compliance With Security for Costs Order' 'guillotine Order' 'costs of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'dismissal for Non Compliance With Security for Costs Order' 'guillotine Order' 'costs of Proceedings']

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

Notices of Motion to Dismiss Proceedings for Failure to Provide Security for Costs / Part Heard Proceedings Adjourned to a Date to Be Fixed; Respondents' Motions Following Non Compliance With Security for Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with orders to provide further security for costs.' 'Whether dismissal should operate immediately or after a further period for compliance.' 'Whether amounts already on deposit for security for costs should be paid to the respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant had notice of the motions, had not complied with the security for costs orders, had not appeared or provided evidence explaining non-compliance or showing any real prospect of funding the proceedings, and the respondents were entitled to finality after incurring significant costs, the appropriate course was to make orders dismissing the proceedings if security was not paid by 17 August 2007, with liberty to apply before dismissal.

Court Disposition

Proceedings to be dismissed unless the applicant pays security for costs by 17 August 2007; costs and payment out orders made, with leave to apply to vary or discharge orders.

Orders

  • ['In the event that the applicant does not pay security for costs in favour of the first and second respondents in accordance with the Orders made on 19 February 2007 by 17 August 2007, the proceedings be dismissed.' 'In the event that the proceedings are dismissed, the applicant pay to the respondents their costs...