MYVC v Director-General of Security [2015] FCA 1521

MYVC v Director-General of Security [2015] FCA 1521

The interests of justice favoured ordering security for costs because the appellant was ordinarily resident in Sri Lanka, had no evidenced assets in Australia, had assets and income in Sri Lanka enabling him to provide security without stifling the appeal, any costs enforcement in Sri Lanka would likely be more time-consuming and costly, the matter was an appeal following an adverse determination, the prospects of success were at best neutral given the unclear grounds, and any arguable public importance did not outweigh the factors supporting security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application in an Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part; appellant ordered to provide security of $30,000 and appeal stayed until security is given.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs of an Appeal' 'adverse Security Assessment' 'passport Cancellation and Refusal' 'closed Evidence Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'non Resident Appellant' 'enforcement of Costs Orders Overseas']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'national Security' 'passports'] ['security for Costs of an Appeal' 'adverse Security Assessment' 'passport Cancellation and Refusal' 'closed Evidence Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'non Resident Appellant' 'enforcement of Costs Orders Overseas']

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; Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application in an Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should be ordered to give security for the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 36.09 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." "Whether the appellant's residence in Sri Lanka and absence of assets in Australia supported an order for security for costs." 'Whether the appellant had assets or income sufficient to provide security without being prevented from prosecuting the appeal.' 'Whether possible enforcement of an adverse costs order in Sri Lanka under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) made security unnecessary.' 'Whether the character of the proceeding as an appeal, the prospects of success, and any public importance of the issues affected the discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice favoured ordering security for costs because the appellant was ordinarily resident in Sri Lanka, had no evidenced assets in Australia, had assets and income in Sri Lanka enabling him to provide security without stifling the appeal, any costs enforcement in Sri Lanka would likely be more time-consuming and costly, the matter was an appeal following an adverse determination, the prospects of success were at best neutral given the unclear grounds, and any arguable public importance did not outweigh the factors supporting security.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part; appellant ordered to provide security of $30,000 and appeal stayed until security is given.

Orders

  • ["Within 28 days of the date of these orders the appellant give security for the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal in the sum of $30,000 by paying the money into Court or providing to the New South Wales District Registrar an unconditional bank guarantee from an Australian-owned bank in a form...