Burhala v Yeo [2023] FCA 962

Burhala v Yeo [2023] FCA 962

Security for costs was appropriate because Mr Burhala resided in Romania, had been outside Australia since 2 October 2015, had no assets in Australia available to meet an adverse costs order, and provided no evidence that he was impecunious or that security would stultify his application. The evidence instead showed paid employment in Romania, likely control of significant Romanian real estate assets and capacity to retain lawyers. No countervailing factor weighed against security, and the requested amount of $55,840 was reasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Respect of an Application for an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'extension of Time and Leave to Appeal' 'applicant Resident Outside Australia' 'no Assets in Australia' 'bankruptcy Trustees']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy and Insolvency'] ['security for Costs' 'extension of Time and Leave to Appeal' 'applicant Resident Outside Australia' 'no Assets in Australia' 'bankruptcy Trustees']

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 Respect of an Application for an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs of and incidental to his application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal." "Whether an order for security would stultify the applicant's proposed application." 'Whether the amount of security sought by the respondents was reasonable.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was appropriate because Mr Burhala resided in Romania, had been outside Australia since 2 October 2015, had no assets in Australia available to meet an adverse costs order, and provided no evidence that he was impecunious or that security would stultify his application. The evidence instead showed paid employment in Romania, likely control of significant Romanian real estate assets and capacity to retain lawyers. No countervailing factor weighed against security, and the requested amount of $55,840 was reasonable.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant give security for the Respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceeding in the amount of $55,840 to be provided by payment into Court in this proceeding pursuant to r 2.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." 'In the event the security for costs is not provided within 28 days of the date of...