Christodoulou v Disney Enterprises Inc [2006] FCA 38

Christodoulou v Disney Enterprises Inc [2006] FCA 38

Security for costs should be ordered because the appeal lacks real merit or substance, and there is a significant risk the respondents will not recover costs if successful. Due to the narrowing of grounds of appeal, security is set at $10,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
security for costs ordered; costs of motion awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'trade Marks' 'appeal Procedure']
['intellectual Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'trade Marks' 'appeal Procedure']

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 / Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether security for costs should be ordered in the appeal' 'Whether the appeal is without merit or substance' 'What amount of security is appropriate given the circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should be ordered because the appeal lacks real merit or substance, and there is a significant risk the respondents will not recover costs if successful. Due to the narrowing of grounds of appeal, security is set at $10,000.

Court Disposition

security for costs ordered; costs of motion awarded to respondents

Orders

  • ['Unless the appellant provides security for costs in the sum of $10,000 within one month, either by payment or acceptable security to the Registrar, the appeal be stayed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the motion dated 23 November 2005."]