Ninety-Sixth Dekro Pty Ltd & Ors v D. and D. Tolhurst Ltd [1988] FCA 162

Ninety-Sixth Dekro Pty Ltd & Ors v D. and D. Tolhurst Ltd [1988] FCA 162

The Court exercised its discretion not to order security for costs, considering the delay in seeking such an order, the nature of the proceedings, the applicants’ position, procedural fairness, and the need for all issues between the parties to be heard together. Leave was granted for the respondent to add two directors as cross-respondents.

Parties
Applicant: S; Respondent: D and D Tolhurst Ltd.; Cross Respondent: Periklis Ginis; Cross Respondent: Philip Felman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs and Leave to Join Cross Respondents / Interlocutory
Outcome
Security for costs not ordered; leave granted to add cross-respondents.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Cross Claims, Companies Code, Trade Practices Act, Set Off, Breach of Contract, Negligent Advice
Corporate Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Cross Claims Companies Code Trade Practices Act Set Off Breach of Contract +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

D and D Tolhurst Ltd.

Respondent

Periklis Ginis

Cross Respondent

Philip Felman

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Security for Costs and Leave to Join Cross Respondents / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be granted against applicants with no assets
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to add directors as cross-respondents
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking security for costs affects the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion not to order security for costs, considering the delay in seeking such an order, the nature of the proceedings, the applicants’ position, procedural fairness, and the need for all issues between the parties to be heard together. Leave was granted for the respondent to add two directors as cross-respondents.

Court Disposition

Security for costs not ordered; leave granted to add cross-respondents.

Orders

  • No order for security for costs against applicants.
  • Leave granted to respondent to add Periklis Ginis and Philip Felman as cross-respondents in the action.