Day v Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 464

Day v Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 464

Security for costs should not be ordered against the third applicant, as the Supplementary Deed provides adequate indemnity and security for costs. The respondents' application is dismissed; the undertakings and indemnities are sufficient to protect the respondents, and the motion is not justified by the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (security for Costs Motion)
Outcome
motion for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecunious Litigant' 'corporate Plaintiff Liability']
['civil Procedure' 'corporate Insolvency'] ['security for Costs' 'impecunious Litigant' 'corporate Plaintiff Liability']

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

Civil / Interlocutory (security for Costs Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should the third applicant, an insolvent company, be ordered to provide security for costs?' 'Does the Supplementary Deed executed by Mr Day and Day & Co provide adequate indemnity for costs, obviating the need for a security order?']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should not be ordered against the third applicant, as the Supplementary Deed provides adequate indemnity and security for costs. The respondents' application is dismissed; the undertakings and indemnities are sufficient to protect the respondents, and the motion is not justified by the circumstances.

Court Disposition

motion for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application in the Notice of Motion filed on 20 January 2009 be dismissed.' 'The costs of the Notice of Motion be reserved.']