Donnelly & Anor v Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd and Ors [2000] NSWLEC 134

Donnelly & Anor v Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd and Ors [2000] NSWLEC 134

The Applicants were given a final further opportunity because the evidence showed that the $20,000 security was a very heavy burden for them, they had diligently raised and paid about $14,000 since 20 December 1999, the remaining shortfall was difficult to raise due to limited means, and the First, Second and Third Respondents had not demonstrated any specific prejudice beyond the ordinary burden of pending litigation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Notice of Motion Seeking a Further Extension of Time for Operation of a Self Executing Order Dismissing the Proceedings Unless Security for Costs Was Provided
Outcome
Motion granted; time for providing security for costs further extended to 30 June 2000, and the First, Second and Third Respondents' Notice of Motion dated 27 March 2000 withdrawn by consent with leave to file a substitute Motion.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'extension of Time' 'self Executing Order' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution']
['practice and Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'extension of Time' 'self Executing Order' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution']

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

Class 4 Proceedings / Notice of Motion Seeking a Further Extension of Time for Operation of a Self Executing Order Dismissing the Proceedings Unless Security for Costs Was Provided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should further extend the time for the Applicants to provide security for costs ordered in the sum of $20,000.' "Whether it would be unfair to allow the self-executing dismissal order to take effect despite the Applicants' partial payment and fundraising efforts." 'Whether the absence of demonstrated specific prejudice to the First, Second and Third Respondents supported granting a further extension.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants were given a final further opportunity because the evidence showed that the $20,000 security was a very heavy burden for them, they had diligently raised and paid about $14,000 since 20 December 1999, the remaining shortfall was difficult to raise due to limited means, and the First, Second and Third Respondents had not demonstrated any specific prejudice beyond the ordinary burden of pending litigation.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; time for providing security for costs further extended to 30 June 2000, and the First, Second and Third Respondents' Notice of Motion dated 27 March 2000 withdrawn by consent with leave to file a substitute Motion.

Orders

  • ["The time fixed in Order No. 1 of the Court's orders made on 20 December 1999 be further extended by substituting for the initially extended date 1 March 2000 the date 30 June 2000." 'The bank cheque in the sum of $4,200 received in favour of the Court will become Exhibit 2 and is to be passed to the Registrar of...