Stanbridge, Dennis v Minister for Defence Senator Robert Francis Ray & Anor [1996] FCA 98

Stanbridge, Dennis v Minister for Defence Senator Robert Francis Ray & Anor [1996] FCA 98

Because the security for costs ordered by Spender J had not been appealed, set aside or rescinded, and Dennis Stanbridge had not provided it or shown any material change in circumstances, it was appropriate to require provision within fourteen days and dismiss the appeal in default. His notices of motion failed because the respondents' security applications were not invalid, vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of process, and the Federal Court lacked demonstrated jurisdiction or power to grant the criminal referral, suspension and bail-related relief sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Security for Costs of Appeal and Notices of Motion / Orders on Notices of Motion After Security for Costs of Appeal Was Not Provided
Outcome
Security for costs to be provided within fourteen days, failing which the appeal is dismissed with costs; Dennis Stanbridge's notices of motion dismissed; Dennis Stanbridge ordered to pay respondents' costs of specified notices of motion.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs of Appeal' 'dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Provide Security' 'standing Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977' 'jurisdiction of the Federal Court']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['security for Costs of Appeal' 'dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Provide Security' 'standing Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977' 'jurisdiction of the Federal Court']

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 Concerning Security for Costs of Appeal and Notices of Motion / Orders on Notices of Motion After Security for Costs of Appeal Was Not Provided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a specified period should be fixed for Dennis Stanbridge to provide security for costs of the appeal and whether the appeal should be dismissed in default.' 'Whether the notices of motion filed by the Minister and the Board of Directors of BHP were invalid, vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of process.' 'Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction or power to make the criminal referral, suspension and bail orders sought by Dennis Stanbridge.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the security for costs ordered by Spender J had not been appealed, set aside or rescinded, and Dennis Stanbridge had not provided it or shown any material change in circumstances, it was appropriate to require provision within fourteen days and dismiss the appeal in default. His notices of motion failed because the respondents' security applications were not invalid, vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of process, and the Federal Court lacked demonstrated jurisdiction or power to grant the criminal referral, suspension and bail-related relief sought.

Court Disposition

Security for costs to be provided within fourteen days, failing which the appeal is dismissed with costs; Dennis Stanbridge's notices of motion dismissed; Dennis Stanbridge ordered to pay respondents' costs of specified notices of motion.

Orders

  • ['In default of Dennis Stanbridge within fourteen days of the date of this order providing the security for costs ordered by Spender J on 20 July 1995 his appeal against the orders of Drummond J made on 18 May 1995 be dismissed with costs to be taxed if not agreed.' 'The notices of motion of Dennis Stanbridge filed...