GG Australia Pty Ltd v Sphere Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 664

GG Australia Pty Ltd v Sphere Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 664

The evidence did not establish that corporate applicants would be unable to pay respondents' costs, nor that the natural applicant was impecunious or that there was an abuse of process; failure to establish on balance of probabilities the costs attributed solely to corporate applicants undermined respondents' case; delay in application and commonality of claims weighed against exercising discretion for security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Respondents' interlocutory application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'defamation' 'interference With Contractual Relations']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial Law' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'defamation' 'interference With Contractual Relations']

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

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against natural and corporate applicants' "Whether corporate applicants will be unable to pay respondents' costs" 'Whether an order for security should be made against the natural applicant' "Whether the natural applicant's claims constitute abuse of process" 'Effect of commonality of claims between applicants on security for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that corporate applicants would be unable to pay respondents' costs, nor that the natural applicant was impecunious or that there was an abuse of process; failure to establish on balance of probabilities the costs attributed solely to corporate applicants undermined respondents' case; delay in application and commonality of claims weighed against exercising discretion for security.

Court Disposition

Respondents' interlocutory application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ["The respondents' interlocutory application filed on 27 October 2016 be dismissed." "The respondents pay the applicants' costs of the interlocutory application filed on 27 October 2016." 'List the proceeding for a case management hearing at 9.30 am on 21 June 2017.']