Carrigan v Honourable Senator Michaelia Cash [2017] FCA 266

Carrigan v Honourable Senator Michaelia Cash [2017] FCA 266

The applicant was ordered to provide security for costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, in the sum of $10,000, as she acknowledged she would struggle to pay, there was evidence of risk of non-recovery, and the respondent's likely costs were substantial. The applicant's discovery application was dismissed as irrelevant to the grounds of appeal and not pursued at first instance, and as the appellate court would not revisit the merits of the original judicial review application dismissed summarily on grounds of parliamentary privilege.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs and Discovery) in Pending Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment (after Summary Dismissal at First Instance), Pre Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Applicant's interlocutory application for discovery dismissed; application for security for costs by respondents granted; applicant to provide security; costs orders made against applicant.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'security for Costs' 'discovery' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['summary Judgment' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'security for Costs' 'discovery' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness']

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 Applications (security for Costs and Discovery) in Pending Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment (after Summary Dismissal at First Instance), Pre Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for the costs of the application for leave to appeal and appeal.' "Whether the applicant's interlocutory application for discovery should be granted in the context of pending appeal proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was ordered to provide security for costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, in the sum of $10,000, as she acknowledged she would struggle to pay, there was evidence of risk of non-recovery, and the respondent's likely costs were substantial. The applicant's discovery application was dismissed as irrelevant to the grounds of appeal and not pursued at first instance, and as the appellate court would not revisit the merits of the original judicial review application dismissed summarily on grounds of parliamentary privilege.

Court Disposition

Applicant's interlocutory application for discovery dismissed; application for security for costs by respondents granted; applicant to provide security; costs orders made against applicant.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's interlocutory application for discovery dated 24 February 2017 is dismissed." "The applicant is to pay the first and third respondents' costs of that interlocutory application, as agreed or assessed." "The applicant is to provide security for the costs of the first and third respondents of and...