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.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Pre Trial
Legal Issues
- 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,...
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