Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509

Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509

Security for costs was ordered because Mr Moore was bankrupt and impecunious, there was a very real risk that he could not meet any adverse costs orders, the appeals raised no public interest or matter of general significance, any frustration of the appeals carried less weight because they were appeals after hearings below, there was no evidence that Mr Macks caused Mr Moore's impecuniosity, and neither appeal had any apparent real prospect of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeals; Respondent's Notices of Motion for Security for Costs / Security for Costs Applications Before a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Respondent's motions for security for costs granted in both appeals; hearings stayed until security is provided or further order.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs of Appeal' 'impecuniosity of Bankrupt Appellant' 'stay of Appeal Pending Security' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'trustee in Bankruptcy']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['security for Costs of Appeal' 'impecuniosity of Bankrupt Appellant' 'stay of Appeal Pending Security' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'trustee in Bankruptcy']

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

Appeals; Respondent's Notices of Motion for Security for Costs / Security for Costs Applications Before a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for the respondent's costs of two appeals." "Whether the appellant's impecuniosity and bankruptcy created a real risk that he would be unable to meet costs orders if the appeals were unsuccessful." 'Whether the likely frustration of the appeals by a security for costs order should preclude the making of security orders.' 'Whether the appeals had sufficient prospects of success or raised public interest issues so as to weigh against security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because Mr Moore was bankrupt and impecunious, there was a very real risk that he could not meet any adverse costs orders, the appeals raised no public interest or matter of general significance, any frustration of the appeals carried less weight because they were appeals after hearings below, there was no evidence that Mr Macks caused Mr Moore's impecuniosity, and neither appeal had any apparent real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motions for security for costs granted in both appeals; hearings stayed until security is provided or further order.

Orders

  • ['In SAD 84 of 2006, the appellant is to provide security of $4000 for the costs incurred and to be incurred by the respondent in the appeal, such security to be provided by paying the sum of $4000 into Court on or before 24 April 2007.' 'In SAD 84 of 2006, the hearing of the appeal is stayed until such security is...