Mead v Mead [2010] FCA 288

Mead v Mead [2010] FCA 288

Security for costs was ordered because, although it might bar Ms Mead's ability to pursue her appeal, the balance favoured protecting the respondent against the risk of unrecoverable costs given the long litigation history, substantial unsatisfied judgments and costs orders, Ms Mead's lack of assets, and the Court's view that the appeal arguments appeared to be little more than a re-ventilation of matters already raised. The same considerations applied to Ms Yang's appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeals; Notices of Motion Seeking Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; appeals stayed pending provision of security and stood over for further directions.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'oppressive Security Application' 'stay Pending Provision of Security' 'appeal Prospects']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['security for Costs' 'oppressive Security Application' 'stay Pending Provision of Security' 'appeal Prospects']

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

Appeals; Notices of Motion Seeking Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered for the appeals brought by Ms Mead and Ms Yang.' 'Whether the application for security for costs was oppressive in the sense of being used merely to deny an impecunious applicant a right to litigate.' 'Whether the appeal grounds amounted to a re-ventilation of matters already decided.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because, although it might bar Ms Mead's ability to pursue her appeal, the balance favoured protecting the respondent against the risk of unrecoverable costs given the long litigation history, substantial unsatisfied judgments and costs orders, Ms Mead's lack of assets, and the Court's view that the appeal arguments appeared to be little more than a re-ventilation of matters already raised. The same considerations applied to Ms Yang's appeal.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; appeals stayed pending provision of security and stood over for further directions.

Orders

  • ['The Appellant, Ms Lucy Guitar Mead, together with the Appellant in proceeding NSD 1447/2009, Ms Lee Chin Lien Yang, provide security for costs for the appeals NSD 1445/2009 and NSD 1447/2009 in the amount of $10,000 in a form acceptable to the Registrar of the Court on or before Monday 12 April 2010.' 'The matter...