Rabvila Pty Ltd v Reymour Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 230

Rabvila Pty Ltd v Reymour Investments Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 230

Security for costs is refused because there is a strong prima facie case that misleading statements were made regarding profitability, the financial statements were not provided before purchase, and making an order for security would stifle the litigation, which would not be just in the circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Rabvila Pty. Limited; First Respondent: Reymor Investments Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: John Charles Reynolds; Third Respondent: Ian Moir; Fourth Respondent: Hungerford, Hancock & Offner (a firm)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discretionary Trust, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Civil Procedure Trade Practices Security for Costs Discretionary Trust Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabvila Pty. Limited

Applicant

Reymor Investments Pty. Limited

First Respondent

John Charles Reynolds

Second Respondent

Ian Moir

Third Respondent

Hungerford, Hancock & Offner (a firm)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, as a shell company and trustee of a discretionary trust, should be ordered to provide security for costs
  2. 2 Relevance of the financial position of beneficiaries
  3. 3 Effect of strength of applicant's prima facie case on security

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is refused because there is a strong prima facie case that misleading statements were made regarding profitability, the financial statements were not provided before purchase, and making an order for security would stifle the litigation, which would not be just in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • The application for security for costs be dismissed.