Lewis, T. & Anor v Hambley W.D. & V.D. & V.J. & Ors [1987] FCA 708

Lewis, T. & Anor v Hambley W.D. & V.D. & V.J. & Ors [1987] FCA 708

Having regard to the undertakings not to dispose of assets and the close relationship of the cross-claim to the main claim, this was not an appropriate case to order security for costs against the first respondent at this stage, but the applicants have liberty to reapply if circumstances change.

Parties
Applicant: Trevor Alan Lewis; Applicant: Sharyn Patricia Lewis; First Respondent: W.D. & V.J. Hambley Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Mal Jones & Co. Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Warren Dudley Hambley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs (cross Claim) / Interlocutory
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Cross Claims, Designs Infringement, Copyright Infringement
Practice and Procedure Intellectual Property Company Law Security for Costs Cross Claims Designs Infringement Copyright Infringement

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Alan Lewis

Applicant

Sharyn Patricia Lewis

Applicant

W.D. & V.J. Hambley Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Mal Jones & Co. Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Warren Dudley Hambley

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Security for Costs (cross Claim) / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a corporate respondent cross-claimant under s.56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act and s.533 of the Companies (Western Australia) Code
  2. 2 Whether the cross-claim adds any substantive issues beyond the defence
  3. 3 Effect of undertakings offered with respect to the respondent company's assets

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the undertakings not to dispose of assets and the close relationship of the cross-claim to the main claim, this was not an appropriate case to order security for costs against the first respondent at this stage, but the applicants have liberty to reapply if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Upon undertaking of the first and third respondents that the first respondent will not dispose of its capital assets pending determination of the action, the motion is dismissed.
  • Liberty to apply for release from that undertaking.