Hunt Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Roebuck Resources NL & Ors [1995] FCA 521

Hunt Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Roebuck Resources NL & Ors [1995] FCA 521

Security for costs was ordered because the appeal had little prospect of success, the appellant was impecunious and unable to provide security, the directors' personal guarantees were unsupported by assets, and there was no public interest or evidence that impecuniosity was caused by the conduct alleged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; costs of the application to respondents.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'appeals']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'appeals']

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

Appeal / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered on appeal' 'Whether the appellant is impecunious and the cause of its impecuniosity' 'Whether the appeal has prospects of success' 'Whether there is a public interest in the appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the appeal had little prospect of success, the appellant was impecunious and unable to provide security, the directors' personal guarantees were unsupported by assets, and there was no public interest or evidence that impecuniosity was caused by the conduct alleged.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; costs of the application to respondents.

Orders

  • ["Within 28 days the appellant provide security for the respondents' costs of this action in the sum of $20,000, failing which the proceeding be stayed." "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of this application."]