James, K.F.D. & Ors v. Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 539

James, K.F.D. & Ors v. Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 539

Given the advanced stage of proceedings, the lateness of the application, the long-standing knowledge of the applicants' financial position, and the established principle protecting natural persons from security for costs orders based on poverty alone, the application for security for costs is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Kingsley Frederick David James; Applicant: Jill Maxine James; Applicant: David Maxwell James; Applicant: Peter Norman James; Applicant: Yallambee Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Second Respondent: Tamar Management Pty. Ltd.; Third Respondent: John Wells
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 1985
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Motion Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Natural Persons and Corporate Applicants, Discretion to Order Security, Delay in Application
Practice and Procedure Civil Procedure Security for Costs Natural Persons and Corporate Applicants Discretion to Order Security Delay in Application

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingsley Frederick David James

Applicant

Jill Maxine James

Applicant

David Maxwell James

Applicant

Peter Norman James

Applicant

Yallambee Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

First Respondent

Tamar Management Pty. Ltd.

Second Respondent

John Wells

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Motion Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against the applicants, including both natural persons and a corporate applicant
  2. 2 The effect of delay in bringing the application for security for costs
  3. 3 The relevance of the applicants’ financial position and previous litigation outcomes

Ratio Decidendi

Given the advanced stage of proceedings, the lateness of the application, the long-standing knowledge of the applicants' financial position, and the established principle protecting natural persons from security for costs orders based on poverty alone, the application for security for costs is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion by the second and third respondents for an order that the applicants give security for costs is dismissed.
  • The costs of the motion are reserved.