Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 585

Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 585

Leave to appeal was refused because the security for costs decisions were not attended by sufficient doubt; the draft grounds of appeal did not address Mansfield J's reasons, identified no operative error, and raised no doubt. Although the orders for security were likely to frustrate the appeals, that factor did not justify leave where the decisions were plainly correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Motions Seeking Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Security for Costs Orders / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The motions seeking leave to appeal were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'trustee in Bankruptcy' 'oppression Proceedings']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'corporations'] ['security for Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'trustee in Bankruptcy' 'oppression 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

Motions Seeking Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Security for Costs Orders / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from orders requiring the applicant to provide security for costs and staying the appeals until security was provided or further order.' 'Whether the security for costs decisions were attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused supposing the decisions to be wrong.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the security for costs decisions were not attended by sufficient doubt; the draft grounds of appeal did not address Mansfield J's reasons, identified no operative error, and raised no doubt. Although the orders for security were likely to frustrate the appeals, that factor did not justify leave where the decisions were plainly correct.

Court Disposition

The motions seeking leave to appeal were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In SAD 84 of 2006, the motion seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'In SAD 7 of 2007, the motion seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.']