Warner v Frost [1999] NSWCA 327

Warner v Frost [1999] NSWCA 327

The application for security for costs is refused because there is a sufficient concern that ordering security would stifle the appeal, given the appellant’s lack of funds.

Parties
1st Claimant/1st Respondent: Susan Mary Frost; 2nd Claimant/2nd Respondent: Melissa Frost (by her next friend Susan Mary Frost); 3rd Claimant/3rd Respondent: Donald Martin; Opponent/appellant: Carolyn Warner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeal, Bankruptcy
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appeal Bankruptcy

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Mary Frost

1st Claimant/1st Respondent

Melissa Frost (by her next friend Susan Mary Frost)

2nd Claimant/2nd Respondent

Donald Martin

3rd Claimant/3rd Respondent

Carolyn Warner

Opponent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the appellant in the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether making an order for security for costs would stifle the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs is refused because there is a sufficient concern that ordering security would stifle the appeal, given the appellant’s lack of funds.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Costs of motion to be costs in the appeal