Fat-Sel Pty Ltd v. Brambles Holdings Ltd [1985] FCA 103

Fat-Sel Pty Ltd v. Brambles Holdings Ltd [1985] FCA 103

The applicant's accounts showed accumulated losses, very limited current assets compared with current liabilities, and virtually no liquid assets; the charged plant and equipment did not provide a sufficient liquid margin after the secured principal, and the applicant failed to prove that the respondent's alleged conduct materially caused its impecuniosity. Security for costs should therefore be provided, with the amount to be addressed after taxation of the respondent's costs to date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Proceedings Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs held appropriate in principle; respondent's costs to date ordered to be taxed and the application for security stood over to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'company Impecuniosity' 'discretion Under S.533(1)' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'quantum of Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'trade Practices'] ['security for Costs' 'company Impecuniosity' 'discretion Under S.533(1)' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'quantum of Costs']

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 for Security for Costs in Proceedings Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was reason to believe the applicant would be unable to pay the respondent's costs if the respondent were successful in its defence." "Whether security for costs should be refused in the Court's discretion because the applicant's financial difficulties were attributable to the respondent's alleged conduct." 'What approach should be taken to the quantum of security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's accounts showed accumulated losses, very limited current assets compared with current liabilities, and virtually no liquid assets; the charged plant and equipment did not provide a sufficient liquid margin after the secured principal, and the applicant failed to prove that the respondent's alleged conduct materially caused its impecuniosity. Security for costs should therefore be provided, with the amount to be addressed after taxation of the respondent's costs to date.

Court Disposition

Security for costs held appropriate in principle; respondent's costs to date ordered to be taxed and the application for security stood over to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ["Order that the respondent's costs in the principal proceedings to date be taxed." 'Stand application for security over to a date to be fixed.' "Reserve costs of proceedings before the Deputy District Registrar in respect of the taxation of the respondent's costs; otherwise costs of this application to be the...