Lamb v Hog's Breath Company Pty Ltd (No 1) [2007] FCA 49

Lamb v Hog's Breath Company Pty Ltd (No 1) [2007] FCA 49

Security was ordered because the applicant resided in the United States, apparently had no assets in the jurisdiction, and provided limited evidence that a security order would stifle the proceeding, while the respondents' pre-trial costs estimates were uncontested. The amount was limited to $60,000 up to but not including the first day of trial because complete security was inappropriate and the matter might resolve after interlocutory steps. Transfer to Brisbane was refused as premature because the parties' interests were fairly evenly balanced, the applicant had Perth solicitors, the respondents were not inherently Brisbane-based, and interlocutory processes could be managed by...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs and Transfer of Proceedings in a Proceeding Alleging Copyright Infringement / Interlocutory Motions
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in part; motion for transfer dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'applicant Outside Jurisdiction' 'no Assets in Jurisdiction' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'federal Court Registry' 'case Management']
['practice and Procedure' 'copyright'] ['security for Costs' 'applicant Outside Jurisdiction' 'no Assets in Jurisdiction' 'transfer of Proceedings' 'federal Court Registry' 'case Management']

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

Motion for Security for Costs and Transfer of Proceedings in a Proceeding Alleging Copyright Infringement / Interlocutory Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should provide security for the first, third, fourth and fifth respondents' costs and, if so, in what amount and on what terms." 'Whether the proceedings commenced in the Perth Registry should be transferred to the Brisbane Registry.' 'Whether proceedings should be stayed if security is not provided by the ordered date.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security was ordered because the applicant resided in the United States, apparently had no assets in the jurisdiction, and provided limited evidence that a security order would stifle the proceeding, while the respondents' pre-trial costs estimates were uncontested. The amount was limited to $60,000 up to but not including the first day of trial because complete security was inappropriate and the matter might resolve after interlocutory steps. Transfer to Brisbane was refused as premature because the parties' interests were fairly evenly balanced, the applicant had Perth solicitors, the respondents were not inherently Brisbane-based, and interlocutory processes could be managed by...

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in part; motion for transfer dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to provide security for the first, third, fourth and fifth respondents' costs of the proceedings up to trial but not including the first day of trial, in the amount of $60,000 to be provided by way of payment into Court or bank guarantee in a form acceptable to the Registrar." 'The applicant is to...