Shumack v Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing [2005] FCA 538
Because the appellant was a private individual and the appeal had not been struck out and had to be treated as arguable, an order for security for costs might stultify the appeal; established authority therefore required dismissal of the motion.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 April 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Security for Costs of an Appeal / Interlocutory Motion Before Appeal Hearing by a Full Court
- Outcome
- Motion for security for costs dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['security for Costs' 'appeal' 'impecuniosity of Private Individual' 'stultification of Arguable Claim']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs of an Appeal / Interlocutory Motion Before Appeal Hearing by a Full Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered against a private individual appellant where the respondent contended that the appeal had very little prospect of success.' 'Whether the Court should consider the alleged lack of prospects of success on a security for costs application rather than on a strike out motion.']
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant was a private individual and the appeal had not been struck out and had to be treated as arguable, an order for security for costs might stultify the appeal; established authority therefore required dismissal of the motion.
Court Disposition
Motion for security for costs dismissed.
Orders
- ['The motion be dismissed.' 'The applicant on the motion (the respondent to the proceeding) pay the costs of the appellant.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment