Darcey v The Preterm Foundation [1987] FCA 260

Darcey v The Preterm Foundation [1987] FCA 260

The Court’s discretion to order security for costs is unfettered; impecuniosity alone does not entitle an order. On the evidence, the appeal is brought for the appellant's benefit, not the religious community, and the appeal raises an arguable question of law. Therefore, justice is best served by declining an order for security for costs.

Parties
Applicant: Patrick Michael Darcey; Respondent: The Preterm Foundation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Motion for Security for Costs; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Motion for security for costs dismissed. Costs of the motion reserved.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeals, Bankruptcy Proceedings
Practice and Procedure Bankruptcy Security for Costs Appeals Bankruptcy Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Michael Darcey

Applicant

The Preterm Foundation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in an Appeal / Motion for Security for Costs; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the appellant in circumstances of alleged impecuniosity and possible benefit to others
  2. 2 Whether the merits of the appeal are relevant to an application for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court’s discretion to order security for costs is unfettered; impecuniosity alone does not entitle an order. On the evidence, the appeal is brought for the appellant's benefit, not the religious community, and the appeal raises an arguable question of law. Therefore, justice is best served by declining an order for security for costs.

Court Disposition

Motion for security for costs dismissed. Costs of the motion reserved.

Orders

  • The motion for security for costs be dismissed.
  • The costs of the motion be reserved.