Von Schoeler v Allen Taylor and Co trading as Boral Timber [2019] FCA 941

Von Schoeler v Allen Taylor and Co trading as Boral Timber [2019] FCA 941

Given the appellant's impecuniosity, the reasonable prospects of success in the appeal, and the likelihood that an order for security would stifle a reasonably arguable appeal, it is appropriate to refuse the application for security for costs.

Parties
Appellant: Lilo Hana Von Schoeler; First Respondent: Allen Taylor & Co trading as Boral Timber; Second Respondent: John Urquhart; Third Respondent: Timothy Hey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Appellate / Application for Security for Costs in Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Prospects of Success, Sex Discrimination
Practice & Procedure Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Security for Costs Impecuniosity Prospects of Success Sex Discrimination

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lilo Hana Von Schoeler

Appellant

Allen Taylor & Co trading as Boral Timber

First Respondent

John Urquhart

Second Respondent

Timothy Hey

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appellate / Application for Security for Costs in Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against an impecunious appellant in an appeal alleging contraventions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether security for costs would stifle a reasonably arguable appeal
  3. 3 Consideration of appellant's prospects of success in appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Given the appellant's impecuniosity, the reasonable prospects of success in the appeal, and the likelihood that an order for security would stifle a reasonably arguable appeal, it is appropriate to refuse the application for security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The first respondent's application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • Costs are reserved.