Hydrocool Pty Limited v Hepburn (No 2) [2010] FCA 285

Hydrocool Pty Limited v Hepburn (No 2) [2010] FCA 285

The first to third respondents satisfied the threshold of s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act with credible testimony of Hydrocool's inability to pay costs; delay did not justify refusing relief; security for costs was reasonable and ordered in the sum of $150,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Pre Trial
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; some costs awarded; further proceedings listed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'delay in Application' 'corporations as Applicants']

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 for Security for Costs / Pre Trial

  1. 1 ['Whether the threshold requirement for security for costs under s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is met' 'Whether the application for security for costs should be refused due to delay' 'Quantum of security for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The first to third respondents satisfied the threshold of s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act with credible testimony of Hydrocool's inability to pay costs; delay did not justify refusing relief; security for costs was reasonable and ordered in the sum of $150,000.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; some costs awarded; further proceedings listed.

Orders

  • ['Applicant to provide additional security in the sum of $150,000 to first, second and third respondents by bank guarantee or form acceptable to the District Registrar, applicable up to and including trial.' 'If $75,000 security not provided by 8 March 2010 or remaining $75,000 not provided by 15 March 2010,...