Elitegold Pty Ltd v C.M. Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 137

Elitegold Pty Ltd v C.M. Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 137

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant company was impecunious, the respondents had succeeded at first instance after a lengthy trial and would be out of pocket if successful on appeal, there was no evidence from the persons behind the appellant explaining why they could not support the appeal, and the prior security was inadequate. However, because the appeal was not hopeless and had arguable prospects, the court exercised its discretion to order security of $7000 rather than the $13,912 sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Respondents' Motion for Security for Costs After Applicant Was Unsuccessful at First Instance
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in part; appellant to pay respondents' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'appeal From Factual Findings' 'impecunious Corporate Litigant' 'section 52 Trade Practices Act' 'reliance on Misleading Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'trade Practices'] ['security for Costs' 'appeal From Factual Findings' 'impecunious Corporate Litigant' 'section 52 Trade Practices Act' 'reliance on Misleading Conduct']

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

Motion for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Respondents' Motion for Security for Costs After Applicant Was Unsuccessful at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should provide security for the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'Whether the appeal was hopeless or had arguable prospects despite challenging factual findings made at trial.' 'Whether the litigation was being pursued for the interests or benefit of another party.' 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant company was impecunious, the respondents had succeeded at first instance after a lengthy trial and would be out of pocket if successful on appeal, there was no evidence from the persons behind the appellant explaining why they could not support the appeal, and the prior security was inadequate. However, because the appeal was not hopeless and had arguable prospects, the court exercised its discretion to order security of $7000 rather than the $13,912 sought.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in part; appellant to pay respondents' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The appellant is to provide security in the sum of $7000 in a manner approved by the Registrar.' 'Security is to be provided by not later than 4 pm on Friday 31 March 1995.' 'If security is not provided, the application in the motion for staying the proceedings is stood over to 9.30am on April 3.' "The appellant...