Dixon, Meachelle v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 87

Dixon, Meachelle v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 87

Leave to file and serve the notice of appeal was granted because the delay was small and explained, no relevant prejudice would be caused, and the proposed statutory construction ground was not so hopeless that it should be dismissed at the leave stage. Security for costs was ordered because the applicant was an impecunious natural person appealing from a determination, her prospects of success were not rated highly, the respondents were not responsible for her impecuniosity, and the request for security was not oppressive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal; Motion for Security for Costs / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders Before Finn J
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal stayed pending security for costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'insurance Moneys Charge' 'disclaimer of Indemnity' 'section 26(3) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (act)']
['civil Procedure' 'insurance Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['leave to Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'insurance Moneys Charge' 'disclaimer of Indemnity' 'section 26(3) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (act)']

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 Leave to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal; Motion for Security for Costs / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders Before Finn J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file and serve a notice of appeal one day out of time from the judgment of Mr Justice Gallop of 28 October 1996.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had any prospect of being upheld, particularly on the construction of s26(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT).' "Whether, if leave were granted, the appeal should be made conditional upon or stayed until the applicant provided security for the respondents' costs of the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file and serve the notice of appeal was granted because the delay was small and explained, no relevant prejudice would be caused, and the proposed statutory construction ground was not so hopeless that it should be dismissed at the leave stage. Security for costs was ordered because the applicant was an impecunious natural person appealing from a determination, her prospects of success were not rated highly, the respondents were not responsible for her impecuniosity, and the request for security was not oppressive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal stayed pending security for costs.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be granted leave to file and serve a notice of appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Gallop of 28 October 1996.' 'The appeal be stayed until the applicant lodge with the ACT District Registrar security for the payment of costs in the sum of $9,000 in a form acceptable to the Registrar.']