Guildford International Group Pty Ltd, in the matter of Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd v Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1486
The plaintiff had failed for many months to comply with multiple security for costs orders, had not appealed or applied to vary them, and gave no evidence or explanation for non-compliance despite those standing behind it apparently having means and standing to benefit. The concurrent ASIC proceeding did not justify allowing the plaintiff to continue to avoid compliance for an indeterminate period; any prejudice from dismissal was within the plaintiff's control because it could provide security or apply to vary the orders. However, because dismissal before a hearing on the merits is serious, the appropriate exercise of discretion was to give the plaintiff one final chance by making...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial and Corporations; Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Interlocutory Applications by Defendants for Dismissal or Self Executing Orders Following Non Compliance With Security for Costs Orders
- Outcome
- Self-executing orders made for dismissal of the proceeding if the plaintiff does not provide security for costs within 14 days; defendants awarded costs of their interlocutory applications.
- Legal Topics
- ['security for Costs' 'dismissal for Non Compliance With Court Orders' 'self Executing Orders' 'effect of Concurrent ASIC Proceedings' 'oppression Proceeding']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations; Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Proceeding / Interlocutory Applications by Defendants for Dismissal or Self Executing Orders Following Non Compliance With Security for Costs Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the proceeding should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to comply with orders to provide security for costs.' 'Whether self-executing dismissal orders should be made if security was not provided within a further specified time.' 'Whether concurrent ASIC proceedings concerning Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd justified staying, adjourning, or deferring dismissal of the proceeding.' 'What costs orders should follow if a self-executing dismissal order was made.']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff had failed for many months to comply with multiple security for costs orders, had not appealed or applied to vary them, and gave no evidence or explanation for non-compliance despite those standing behind it apparently having means and standing to benefit. The concurrent ASIC proceeding did not justify allowing the plaintiff to continue to avoid compliance for an indeterminate period; any prejudice from dismissal was within the plaintiff's control because it could provide security or apply to vary the orders. However, because dismissal before a hearing on the merits is serious, the appropriate exercise of discretion was to give the plaintiff one final chance by making...
Court Disposition
Self-executing orders made for dismissal of the proceeding if the plaintiff does not provide security for costs within 14 days; defendants awarded costs of their interlocutory applications.
Orders
- ['Unless the plaintiff provide security for the costs of the first defendant in the sum of $240,000, the second defendant in the sum of $150,000 and the third defendant in the sum of $95,000 within 14 days of this order then the proceeding against each of the defendants be dismissed.' "Unless the plaintiff provides...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment