Monte v Gianni Versace SpA [2003] FCA 956

Monte v Gianni Versace SpA [2003] FCA 956

Security for costs was appropriate because the evidence clearly established that the appellant would be unable to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, the grounds of appeal were opaque, obtuse and failed to confront the trial judge's adverse credibility findings, and the prospects of success were negligible; the respondents' unchallenged costs evidence supported security in the sum of $65,000, with the appeal to be stayed if security was not provided.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Motion on Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; appeal to be stayed if security is not provided.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'stay of Appeal' 'prospects of Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'notice of Appeal' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'defamatory Imputations']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Procedure' 'defamation' 'trade Practices'] ['security for Costs' 'stay of Appeal' 'prospects of Appeal' 'impecuniosity' 'notice of Appeal' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'defamatory Imputations']

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 an Appeal / Motion on Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs of the appeal." "Whether the appellant was impecunious in the sense that he would be unable to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal." "Whether the appeal had negligible prospects of success having regard to the notice of appeal and the trial judge's reasons." 'What amount of security should be ordered and whether the appeal should be stayed if security was not provided.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was appropriate because the evidence clearly established that the appellant would be unable to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, the grounds of appeal were opaque, obtuse and failed to confront the trial judge's adverse credibility findings, and the prospects of success were negligible; the respondents' unchallenged costs evidence supported security in the sum of $65,000, with the appeal to be stayed if security was not provided.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; appeal to be stayed if security is not provided.

Orders

  • ['The appellant provide by 4 pm on 30 September 2003 security in a form acceptable to the Registrar for costs of the appeal in the sum of $65,000.' 'In the event that such security is not provided, the appeal be stayed.' "The appellant is to pay the respondents' costs of their motion, notice of which was filed on 12...