Freeman v National Australia Bank Limited [2004] FCA 601

Freeman v National Australia Bank Limited [2004] FCA 601

Security for costs was ordered because the appeal raised no question of legal principle or issue of public importance, was part of extensive litigation in which Mr Freeman had repeatedly failed against National Australia Bank, his appeal rights on the underlying issues had been exhausted, he was impecunious, ten costs orders in favour of the bank remained unsatisfied, and there was no prospect that the bank would recover its costs if the appeal failed. In those circumstances it was just to require $5,000 security, notwithstanding that the amount was not a full indemnity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Motion in an Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court Dismissing an Application to Annul Bankruptcy
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; appeal to be stayed unless security is provided.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs on Appeal' 'discretion Under S 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'federal Court Rules O 52 R 20' 'impecunious Appellant' 'unsatisfied Costs Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'bankruptcy'] ['security for Costs on Appeal' 'discretion Under S 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'federal Court Rules O 52 R 20' 'impecunious Appellant' 'unsatisfied Costs 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

Application for Security for Costs / Motion in an Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court Dismissing an Application to Annul Bankruptcy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order security for costs of Mr Freeman's appeal despite O 52 r 20 of the Federal Court Rules providing that no security for costs of an appeal is required unless the Court or a Judge otherwise directs." "Whether the circumstances of extensive prior litigation, Mr Freeman's impecuniosity, and ten unsatisfied costs orders justified requiring security for costs." 'What amount of security should be ordered if security was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the appeal raised no question of legal principle or issue of public importance, was part of extensive litigation in which Mr Freeman had repeatedly failed against National Australia Bank, his appeal rights on the underlying issues had been exhausted, he was impecunious, ten costs orders in favour of the bank remained unsatisfied, and there was no prospect that the bank would recover its costs if the appeal failed. In those circumstances it was just to require $5,000 security, notwithstanding that the amount was not a full indemnity.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; appeal to be stayed unless security is provided.

Orders

  • ['Unless security is provided in the sum of $5000 to the satisfaction of the Registrar by 4.00 pm on Friday 21 May 2004, the appeal be stayed.' 'The applicant on the motion have its costs of and incidental to it, to be taxed if not agreed.']