Drumdurno Pty Ltd & Anor v. Braham, M.M. & Ors [1982] FCA 167

Drumdurno Pty Ltd & Anor v. Braham, M.M. & Ors [1982] FCA 167

The applicants, as impecunious companies, fall within the scope where an order for security for costs is ordinarily made to protect the respondents. The court was not satisfied that the applicants’ impecuniosity was caused by the respondents, nor that the shareholders lacked means or willingness to provide security. The action contained no sufficient public importance or oppressive application by respondents to displace the usual order. Security was accordingly ordered for the period up to the completion of all interlocutory steps, amounts to be determined.

Parties
Applicant: Drumdurno Pty. Limited; Applicant: Rodono Pty. Limited; Respondent: Melvyn Martin Braham; Respondent: Adele Claire Braham; Respondent: Daniel Slater; Respondent: Joseph Knowles
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 1982
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (security for Costs) / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Security for costs ordered
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discretion of Court, Impecunious Companies
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Security for Costs Discretion of Court Impecunious Companies

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drumdurno Pty. Limited

Applicant

Rodono Pty. Limited

Applicant

Melvyn Martin Braham

Respondent

Adele Claire Braham

Respondent

Daniel Slater

Respondent

Joseph Knowles

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (security for Costs) / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be ordered to provide security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had a reasonably good prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' want of means was caused by the respondents' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, as impecunious companies, fall within the scope where an order for security for costs is ordinarily made to protect the respondents. The court was not satisfied that the applicants’ impecuniosity was caused by the respondents, nor that the shareholders lacked means or willingness to provide security. The action contained no sufficient public importance or oppressive application by respondents to displace the usual order. Security was accordingly ordered for the period up to the completion of all interlocutory steps, amounts to be determined.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered

Orders

  • The applicants provide security for the costs of the first named respondent in respect of the period up to the point where all interlocutory steps in the application have been completed, in an amount to be decided hereafter.
  • The first named applicant provide security for the costs of the second named respondent in respect of the period up to 15 June 1982 when the first named applicant obtained leave to amend the application so as to delete any claim by it against the second named respondent, in an amount to be decided hereafter.