Logue v Hansen Technologies Ltd [2003] FCA 81

Logue v Hansen Technologies Ltd [2003] FCA 81

The applicant is not 'ordinarily resident' in Australia as he has not formed a settled purpose to remain; his ties are tenuous and his assets are overseas, justifying an order for security for costs under Order 28 rule 3. In the alternative, the circumstances warrant the Court's discretionary order for security under section 56 due to lack of assets in the jurisdiction and uncertainty about applicant's intent and financial position.

Parties
Applicant: Darren John Logue; First Respondent: Hansen Technologies Limited (ACN 090 996 455); Second Respondent: Hansen Corporation Asia Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Ordinary Residence, Federal Court Rules Order 28 Rule 3, Federal Court of Australia Act S 56
Practice and Procedure Security for Costs Ordinary Residence Federal Court Rules Order 28 Rule 3 Federal Court of Australia Act S 56

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 4 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren John Logue

Applicant

Hansen Technologies Limited (ACN 090 996 455)

First Respondent

Hansen Corporation Asia Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is 'ordinarily resident outside Australia' for purposes of Federal Court Rules Order 28 rule 3
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered under Order 28 rule 3 or section 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act
  3. 3 Relevance of applicant's lack of assets in the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is not 'ordinarily resident' in Australia as he has not formed a settled purpose to remain; his ties are tenuous and his assets are overseas, justifying an order for security for costs under Order 28 rule 3. In the alternative, the circumstances warrant the Court's discretionary order for security under section 56 due to lack of assets in the jurisdiction and uncertainty about applicant's intent and financial position.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • On or before 24 February 2003 the respondents file and serve draft short minutes of orders giving effect to the reasons for judgment.
  • Proceedings stand over to a date to be fixed for the making of orders and for any argument in relation thereto, including any argument in relation to the appropriate orders as to costs.