Huntley McArdle & Glass & Anor v Henderson, Russell Fraser & Ors Ford, Nevett v Henderson, Russell Fraser & Ors Gray & Winter & Anor v Henderson, Russell Fraser & Ors [1996] FCA 1063

Huntley McArdle & Glass & Anor v Henderson, Russell Fraser & Ors Ford, Nevett v Henderson, Russell Fraser & Ors Gray & Winter & Anor v Henderson, Russell Fraser & Ors [1996] FCA 1063

Applications for security for costs were refused as the appeals by Huntley McArdle, Nevett Ford, and Gray & Winter were bona fide, raised substantial issues overlapping with those of other appellants with adequate resources, and an order for security would unjustly stultify appeals solely due to impecuniosity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Motion for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'costs Orders' 'appeal Procedure' 'professional Indemnity Insurance' 'contribution Between Respondents']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'costs Orders' 'appeal Procedure' 'professional Indemnity Insurance' 'contribution Between Respondents']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to order security for costs in appeals where appellants are impecunious' 'Whether Huntley McArdle, Nevett Ford, or Gray & Winter should be ordered to provide security for costs to Metzke & Allan and the first to thirty-ninth respondents' 'Whether appeals raise substantive issues justifying refusal of security for costs' 'Extent of overlap of issues between related appeals' 'Implications for costs orders and contribution']

Ratio Decidendi

Applications for security for costs were refused as the appeals by Huntley McArdle, Nevett Ford, and Gray & Winter were bona fide, raised substantial issues overlapping with those of other appellants with adequate resources, and an order for security would unjustly stultify appeals solely due to impecuniosity.

Court Disposition

Motion for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ['The motion on notice dated 21 May 1996 be dismissed.' "The costs of the appellant and Metzke & Allan of and incidental to the said motion on notice be those parties' costs in the appeal." 'The motion on notice dated 9 May 1996 be dismissed.' 'The costs of the first to thirty-ninth respondents and of the appellants...