Lamb v Hog’s Breath Company Pty Ltd (No 4) [2007] FCA 1029

Lamb v Hog’s Breath Company Pty Ltd (No 4) [2007] FCA 1029

The second respondent was entitled to security for costs on the same principles as the earlier order in favour of the other respondents, but security at the same level was not justified because there was substantial room for cooperation between respondents to avoid duplicated work in areas of common interest; absent detailed justification for $60,000, security was fixed at $30,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs / Reasons for Judgment on Second Respondent's Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Motion granted in part; applicant ordered to provide security for the second respondent's costs in the amount of $30,000, with costs of the motion in the cause.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'natural Person Applicant Outside Jurisdiction' 'costs' 'stay of Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'natural Person Applicant Outside Jurisdiction' 'costs' 'stay of Proceedings']

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 / Reasons for Judgment on Second Respondent's Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should provide security for the second respondent's costs." "What amount of security should be ordered for the second respondent, having regard to security already ordered for other respondents and overlap in the respondents' interests." 'Whether costs of the motion should be in the cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent was entitled to security for costs on the same principles as the earlier order in favour of the other respondents, but security at the same level was not justified because there was substantial room for cooperation between respondents to avoid duplicated work in areas of common interest; absent detailed justification for $60,000, security was fixed at $30,000.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; applicant ordered to provide security for the second respondent's costs in the amount of $30,000, with costs of the motion in the cause.

Orders

  • ["The applicant provide security for the second respondent's costs in the proceeding up to but not including the first day of trial in the amount of $30,000 to be provided by way of payment into Court or bank guarantee in a form acceptable to the Registrar." 'The applicant is to provide the security on or before 6...