Preston Super Access Pty Ltd v Australian Trade Commission [2013] FCA 1450

Preston Super Access Pty Ltd v Australian Trade Commission [2013] FCA 1450

Security for costs was ordered because the applicant's own financial information showed it was potentially insolvent and unlikely to meet an adverse costs order, the undertaking offered was vague and given little weight, there was no evidence that security would frustrate the litigation or that relevant shareholders were impecunious, and the appeal appeared weak because it failed to disclose a question of law and appeared to challenge findings of fact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
The Court ordered the applicant to provide security for the First Respondent's costs in the sum of $25,000, failing which the appeal would be dismissed and the applicant would pay the First Respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'competency of Appeal' 'question of Law' 'corporate Applicant Representation']
['administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'competency of Appeal' 'question of Law' 'corporate Applicant Representation']

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 From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for the First Respondent's costs." "Whether the applicant's financial position indicated that it would be unlikely to satisfy an adverse costs order." 'Whether the apparent weakness of the appeal, including failure to disclose a question of law, supported an order for security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the applicant's own financial information showed it was potentially insolvent and unlikely to meet an adverse costs order, the undertaking offered was vague and given little weight, there was no evidence that security would frustrate the litigation or that relevant shareholders were impecunious, and the appeal appeared weak because it failed to disclose a question of law and appeared to challenge findings of fact.

Court Disposition

The Court ordered the applicant to provide security for the First Respondent's costs in the sum of $25,000, failing which the appeal would be dismissed and the applicant would pay the First Respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ["By 4.00 pm on Wednesday 15 January 2014, the Applicant lodge with the Sydney Registry of the Federal Court of Australia security for the First Respondent's costs in the sum of $25,000." 'The security referred to in order 1 be in the form of an unconditional bank guarantee in favour of the First Respondent from an...