Wu v Avin Operations Pty Ltd (No 3) [2006] FCA 1321

Wu v Avin Operations Pty Ltd (No 3) [2006] FCA 1321

The applicant is not ordinarily resident outside Australia. She has current residence, family, business interests, and property in Australia and intends to settle here, which outweighs considerations supporting security for costs. The respondents did not justify cross-examination or provide sufficient evidence of significant prejudice or reliable quantification of likely costs. Delay in making the application and lack of evidentiary basis for injustice or estimated costs further weigh against granting security. The respondents' motion for security for costs is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Motion (interlocutory) / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Second and third respondents' motion for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'discretion to Order Security for Costs' 'ordinarily Resident Status' 'cross Examination on Affidavits in Interlocutory Applications']
['practice and Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'discretion to Order Security for Costs' 'ordinarily Resident Status' 'cross Examination on Affidavits in Interlocutory Applications']

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 (interlocutory) / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant is ordinarily resident outside Australia for the purposes of security for costs under s 56(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and O 28 r 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules' 'Whether the applicant has assets within the jurisdiction' 'Whether delay in seeking security for costs militates against the making of an order' 'Whether to allow cross-examination of the applicant in interlocutory application']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is not ordinarily resident outside Australia. She has current residence, family, business interests, and property in Australia and intends to settle here, which outweighs considerations supporting security for costs. The respondents did not justify cross-examination or provide sufficient evidence of significant prejudice or reliable quantification of likely costs. Delay in making the application and lack of evidentiary basis for injustice or estimated costs further weigh against granting security. The respondents' motion for security for costs is refused.

Court Disposition

Second and third respondents' motion for security for costs refused

Orders

  • ["The second and third respondents' motion, notice of which is dated 15 August 2006, be refused."]