Campbell v Zeiher (No 2) [2009] FCA 1193

Campbell v Zeiher (No 2) [2009] FCA 1193

The Notice of Motion seeking security for costs was dismissed because there was no relevant evidence to justify such an order: there was no evidence of costs already incurred, neither respondent was presently represented by a solicitor, and there was no evidence of likely future costs for which security should be ordered. The imminent final hearing and the lateness of the application also indicated that security for costs may be inappropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning a Dispute About Authorship of a Book / Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Security for Costs and Application for Leave for a Non Lawyer to Represent a Corporation
Outcome
The Notice of Motion filed 25 September 2009 was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'representation of Corporations' 'interlocutory Relief' 'service']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'representation of Corporations' 'interlocutory Relief' 'service']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning a Dispute About Authorship of a Book / Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Security for Costs and Application for Leave for a Non Lawyer to Represent a Corporation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Notice of Motion filed 25 September 2009 seeking security for costs should be granted.' 'Whether the first respondent should be granted leave to represent the second respondent, a corporation, in the proceeding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion seeking security for costs was dismissed because there was no relevant evidence to justify such an order: there was no evidence of costs already incurred, neither respondent was presently represented by a solicitor, and there was no evidence of likely future costs for which security should be ordered. The imminent final hearing and the lateness of the application also indicated that security for costs may be inappropriate.

Court Disposition

The Notice of Motion filed 25 September 2009 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed 25 September 2009 be dismissed with no order as to costs.']