Trendax Pty Ltd v Wheeler, I.W. [1987] FCA 773

Trendax Pty Ltd v Wheeler, I.W. [1987] FCA 773

Given the applicant company's lack of assets and minimal paid up capital, and absent prejudice or disadvantage from the respondents' delay in seeking security for costs, it is appropriate to order security for costs to be provided.

Parties
Applicant: Trendax Pty Limited; First Respondent: Ian William Wheeler; Second Respondent: Newcastle Importers Australia Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Ian & Sons Wholesale Pty Limited; Fourth Respondent: Garth Griffiths; Fifth Respondent: Griffiths Shearman Real Estate Pty Limited trading as 'Wilsons Business Brokers'; Second First Cross Respondent: John George Kerr; Third First Cross Respondent: Kim Reginald Sharpe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Application With Cross Claims / Interlocutory Order (security for Costs and Case Management Directions)
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; application to vacate hearing date refused; directions as to interrogatories.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Case Management, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Case Management Interlocutory Applications

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trendax Pty Limited

Applicant

Ian William Wheeler

First Respondent

Newcastle Importers Australia Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Ian & Sons Wholesale Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Garth Griffiths

Fourth Respondent

Griffiths Shearman Real Estate Pty Limited trading as 'Wilsons Business Brokers'

Fifth Respondent

John George Kerr

Second First Cross Respondent

Kim Reginald Sharpe

Third First Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application With Cross Claims / Interlocutory Order (security for Costs and Case Management Directions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether the hearing date should be vacated due to alleged insufficient time for respondents to consider evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant company's lack of assets and minimal paid up capital, and absent prejudice or disadvantage from the respondents' delay in seeking security for costs, it is appropriate to order security for costs to be provided.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; application to vacate hearing date refused; directions as to interrogatories.

Orders

  • Applicant to pay or provide security for costs of $10,000 by 12 noon, 10 December 1987, in an interest bearing account in joint names of solicitors.
  • Said moneys to be retained in account until further order of the Court.