Guss v Johnstone [1999] FCA 646

Guss v Johnstone [1999] FCA 646

An order for security for costs was justified due to the nature of the appeal from a sequestration order, previous judicial scrutiny of the appellant's underlying claim, absence of any assertion that the order would stifle the appeal, and in the interests of doing substantial justice between the parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Order for security for costs made against the appellant.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'appeal Procedure']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'appeal 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against the appellant in relation to the appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

An order for security for costs was justified due to the nature of the appeal from a sequestration order, previous judicial scrutiny of the appellant's underlying claim, absence of any assertion that the order would stifle the appeal, and in the interests of doing substantial justice between the parties.

Court Disposition

Order for security for costs made against the appellant.

Orders

  • ["Appellant to provide security for the Second Respondent's costs of the appeal in the amount of $5,000 in a form acceptable to the District Registrar at Melbourne, by midday 17 May 1999." 'Liberty to apply.' 'If security is not provided by that date, the appeal is stayed until further order.' "Second Respondent to...