Roadpacker Australia Pty Ltd v Handel, David Warwick & Anor [1995] FCA 881

Roadpacker Australia Pty Ltd v Handel, David Warwick & Anor [1995] FCA 881

Although there was reason to believe there was a real chance the applicant corporation would be unable to pay all of the costs of a successful defendant, the Court declined to order security because the application was delayed, substantial expense had already been incurred by the applicant in the principal proceedings, and no adequate explanation was given for why inquiries into the applicant's financial position were not made earlier.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Motion
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'corporate Applicant Unable to Pay Costs' 'delay in Bringing Application' 'discretion to Order Security']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['security for Costs' 'corporate Applicant Unable to Pay Costs' 'delay in Bringing Application' 'discretion to Order Security']

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

Application for Security for Costs / Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was reason to believe that the applicant corporation would be unable to pay all of the costs of a successful defendant.' 'Whether, despite the threshold for security for costs being met, the Court should exercise its discretion to order security.' 'Whether delay in bringing the application and costs already incurred justified refusing security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was reason to believe there was a real chance the applicant corporation would be unable to pay all of the costs of a successful defendant, the Court declined to order security because the application was delayed, substantial expense had already been incurred by the applicant in the principal proceedings, and no adequate explanation was given for why inquiries into the applicant's financial position were not made earlier.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion be dismissed.' 'The respondents on the motion are to have their costs of the motion.']