Bates, Michael John v Omareef Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 536

Bates, Michael John v Omareef Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 536

Although Mr Bates was impecunious and the respondents faced further costs, there was no presumption that security for costs should be ordered against an individual appellant. Order 52, r 20 states that security for costs of an appeal is not required unless the Court otherwise directs. The appeal raised a bona fide allegation of actual or apparent bias, a matter serious to the administration of justice, and it could not be said at this stage that the appeal was frivolous or so hopeless that it should be stultified by an order for security. The motion for security for costs was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Application by Respondents to an Appeal for Security for Costs Before a Single Judge
Outcome
Respondents' notice of motion for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'individual Appellant' 'impecuniosity' 'bias or Apparent Bias' 'appeal Index' 'amendment to Notice of Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['security for Costs' 'individual Appellant' 'impecuniosity' 'bias or Apparent Bias' 'appeal Index' 'amendment to Notice of Appeal']

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

Appeal; Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Application by Respondents to an Appeal for Security for Costs Before a Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'Whether any presumption in favour of security for costs applies where the appellant is an individual rather than a corporation.' 'Whether an appeal raising allegations of actual or apparent bias should be stultified by an order for security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr Bates was impecunious and the respondents faced further costs, there was no presumption that security for costs should be ordered against an individual appellant. Order 52, r 20 states that security for costs of an appeal is not required unless the Court otherwise directs. The appeal raised a bona fide allegation of actual or apparent bias, a matter serious to the administration of justice, and it could not be said at this stage that the appeal was frivolous or so hopeless that it should be stultified by an order for security. The motion for security for costs was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondents' notice of motion for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion of the Respondents that an order be made that the Appellant provide security for the costs of the appeal be dismissed.' "The Respondents to pay the Appellant's costs of the Notice of Motion." 'Any amendment to the Notice of Appeal be filed and served on or before 18 May 1998.' 'The Appellant...