Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 153

Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 153

The High Court's refusal of special leave caused the stay ordered by Siopis J to lapse; because the appellant had not provided the security for costs required by the Full Court orders of 31 March 2006, the appeal stood dismissed by operation of those orders. The appellant's contention that the orders did not reflect the Court's intention had already been rejected and the Court declined to set aside or vary the orders. The respondents were entitled to their costs of the appeal, but there was no order for costs of the two present Notices of Motion because of the Deputy Registrar's advice that formal motions were required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Security for Costs / Notices of Motion After Appeal Stood Dismissed by Operation of Prior Full Court Orders
Outcome
The Court declared that the appeal stood dismissed by operation of the Full Court orders dated 31 March 2006 and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'dismissal for Failure to Provide Security' 'springing Orders' 'costs of Appeal' 'setting Aside or Varying Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['security for Costs' 'dismissal for Failure to Provide Security' 'springing Orders' 'costs of Appeal' 'setting Aside or Varying Orders']

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 Concerning Security for Costs / Notices of Motion After Appeal Stood Dismissed by Operation of Prior Full Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal stood dismissed by operation of the Full Court orders dated 31 March 2006 after the appellant failed to provide security for costs and the High Court refused special leave.' 'Whether the orders of the Full Court dated 31 March 2006 should be set aside or varied on the basis that they did not reflect the intention of the Court.' 'Whether costs of the appeal and the present Notices of Motion should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's refusal of special leave caused the stay ordered by Siopis J to lapse; because the appellant had not provided the security for costs required by the Full Court orders of 31 March 2006, the appeal stood dismissed by operation of those orders. The appellant's contention that the orders did not reflect the Court's intention had already been rejected and the Court declined to set aside or vary the orders. The respondents were entitled to their costs of the appeal, but there was no order for costs of the two present Notices of Motion because of the Deputy Registrar's advice that formal motions were required.

Court Disposition

The Court declared that the appeal stood dismissed by operation of the Full Court orders dated 31 March 2006 and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal WAD 176 of 2004 stands dismissed by operation of the orders of the Full Court dated 31 March 2006.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, and the second and third respondents' costs of the appeal, in each case to be taxed if not agreed." 'There be no order for costs of the...