Kaldover Pty Ltd v. Maher, C.M. & Ors [1988] FCA 69

Kaldover Pty Ltd v. Maher, C.M. & Ors [1988] FCA 69

Because documentary evidence provides prima facie support for the applicant's misrepresentation claim, it is appropriate in this case to refuse the first respondents' application for security for costs, despite the applicant's insolvency.

Parties
Applicant: Kaldover Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Clair Margaret Maher; First Respondent: Joan Patricia Friel Maher; Second Respondent: Patten Trewin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Misrepresentation, S 52 Trade Practices Act 1974
Commercial Law Trade Practices Security for Costs Misrepresentation S 52 Trade Practices Act 1974

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaldover Pty Ltd

Applicant

Clair Margaret Maher

First Respondent

Joan Patricia Friel Maher

First Respondent

Patten Trewin

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the application for security for costs by the first respondents be granted?
  2. 2 Is there sufficiently strong evidence to justify refusing security for costs in a claim under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act based on alleged misrepresentations?

Ratio Decidendi

Because documentary evidence provides prima facie support for the applicant's misrepresentation claim, it is appropriate in this case to refuse the first respondents' application for security for costs, despite the applicant's insolvency.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for security for costs by the first respondents be dismissed.
  • The costs of the application be the applicant's costs in the proceedings.