Lee v Professional Services Review Committee No 292 [2010] FCA 1346

Lee v Professional Services Review Committee No 292 [2010] FCA 1346

The applicant's bankruptcy and failure to adhere to a security agreement, combined with evidence of ability to raise funds, warrants the ordering of security for costs; mere impecuniosity is not sufficient ground, but in these circumstances, it would not be oppressive to make the order. The previous failure to pay costs despite notice is relevant, as is the balance between applicant's access to justice and respondents' protection against unrecoverable costs.

Parties
Applicant: Il-Song Lee; First Respondent: Professional Services Review Committee No 292; Second Respondent: Chief Executive Officer of Medicare Australia; Third Respondent: Determining Authority; First Respondent: Professional Services Review Committee No 348
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; proceeding stayed until security is provided; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Access to Justice, Bankruptcy and Litigation, Federal Court Procedure
Practice and Procedure Security for Costs Access to Justice Bankruptcy and Litigation Federal Court Procedure

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Il-Song Lee

Applicant

Professional Services Review Committee No 292

First Respondent

Chief Executive Officer of Medicare Australia

Second Respondent

Determining Authority

Third Respondent

Professional Services Review Committee No 348

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against a natural person who is bankrupt
  2. 2 Principles applicable to ordering security for costs from an individual litigant
  3. 3 Whether the application for security is oppressive and denies applicant access to justice

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's bankruptcy and failure to adhere to a security agreement, combined with evidence of ability to raise funds, warrants the ordering of security for costs; mere impecuniosity is not sufficient ground, but in these circumstances, it would not be oppressive to make the order. The previous failure to pay costs despite notice is relevant, as is the balance between applicant's access to justice and respondents' protection against unrecoverable costs.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; proceeding stayed until security is provided; costs orders made.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to motion for security for costs filed 23 September 2010 (NSD 989 of 2010).
  • Applicant to provide additional security for respondents' costs in the sum of $8,500, to be paid into court or solicitors' trust account within 21 days (NSD 1112 of 2010).