Donnelly & Anor - V - Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 39

Donnelly & Anor - V - Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 39

Security for costs was ordered because the applicants were impecunious, appeared to sue for the benefit of others, had an unsatisfied costs order from earlier related proceedings, had weak claims with doubts as to bona fides and collateral purpose, and had not shown that those standing behind them could not provide...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Security for Costs and Declarations That Persons Are Vexatious Litigants / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; proceedings stayed until security is given; vexatious litigant orders refused; costs of the Notice of Motion reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'vexatious Litigants' 'collateral Purpose and Abuse of Process' 'development Consent' 'water Permit' 'timbarra Gold Mine']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'environmental Law' 'water Law'] ['security for Costs' 'vexatious Litigants' 'collateral Purpose and Abuse of Process' 'development Consent' 'water Permit' 'timbarra Gold Mine']

Source-derived case record

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

Notice of Motion for Security for Costs and Declarations That Persons Are Vexatious Litigants / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should provide security for the costs of the first, second and third respondents.' 'Whether Andrew Donnelly and David Mundine should be declared vexatious litigants under Land & Environment Court Act 1979, s 70(2).' 'Whether Alan Oshlack should be declared a vexatious litigant under Land & Environment Court Act 1979, s 70(2).']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the applicants were impecunious, appeared to sue for the benefit of others, had an unsatisfied costs order from earlier related proceedings, had weak claims with doubts as to bona fides and collateral purpose, and had not shown that those standing behind them could not provide security. Although the Court was satisfied that the necessary limbs of Land & Environment Court Act 1979, s 70(2) were met for the applicants, it declined in its discretion to declare them vexatious litigants. The order sought against Alan Oshlack was refused because no evidence established a link beyond his role as agent or that he acted for personal gain or benefit.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; proceedings stayed until security is given; vexatious litigant orders refused; costs of the Notice of Motion reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicants give security for the costs of the first, second and third respondents of and incidental to the proceedings in the sum of $20,000 in a form satisfactory to the Registrar.' 'The proceedings be stayed until the security in order 1 is given.' 'The costs of the Notice of Motion are reserved.']