Maher v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2013] FCA 1143

Maher v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2013] FCA 1143

Security for costs was ordered because it was clear that the applicant would be unable to pay the Bank's costs if unsuccessful, the applicant's extensive litigation history meant the order would not produce apparent injustice of the kind that normally weighs against security for an individual, and the applicant's proposed annulment grounds appeared weak or likely to be defeated by existing costs orders, res judicata or estoppel. A conservative amount of $50,000 was sufficient, with a stay pending provision of security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in a Proceeding for Annulment of Bankruptcy / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The second respondent's application for security for costs was granted; the proceeding was stayed pending provision of security; the applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'impecuniosity' 'stay of Proceeding' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['security for Costs' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'impecuniosity' 'stay of Proceeding' '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

Application for Security for Costs in a Proceeding for Annulment of Bankruptcy / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for the second respondent's costs where it was common ground that he was impecunious and unable to pay costs if ordered." "Whether ordering security would unjustly stultify the applicant's proceeding for annulment of bankruptcy." "Whether the applicant's grounds for annulment had sufficient prospects to affect the discretion to order security."]

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because it was clear that the applicant would be unable to pay the Bank's costs if unsuccessful, the applicant's extensive litigation history meant the order would not produce apparent injustice of the kind that normally weighs against security for an individual, and the applicant's proposed annulment grounds appeared weak or likely to be defeated by existing costs orders, res judicata or estoppel. A conservative amount of $50,000 was sufficient, with a stay pending provision of security.

Court Disposition

The second respondent's application for security for costs was granted; the proceeding was stayed pending provision of security; the applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • ['Within 21 days, the applicant provide security for the costs of the second respondent in the sum of $50,000 and in such form as is acceptable to the District Registrar.' "Save with respect to the second respondent's entitlement under Order 3, pending the provision of security, this proceeding be stayed." "The...