Tyne v UBS AG (No 2) [2014] FCA 1228

Tyne v UBS AG (No 2) [2014] FCA 1228

The security for costs application was dismissed because, applying the reasons already given in Tyne v UBS AG [2014] FCA 1073 and after considering the Trust's financial statements, the Trust had no assets that could be made subject to an order for security for costs. There was no order as to costs because Mr Tyne sought only the analogue of professional costs, but he had never held a practising certificate and was not entitled to practise in the Federal Court; the Chorley exception therefore did not apply and the Court had no power to award him costs for his time preparing or presenting the case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs and Costs of That Application / Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
The respondent's interlocutory application for security for costs was dismissed, with no order as to the costs of that application.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity of Trustee of Unit Trust' 'costs for Self Represented Litigant' 'chorley Exception' 'practising Certificate']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'impecuniosity of Trustee of Unit Trust' 'costs for Self Represented Litigant' 'chorley Exception' 'practising Certificate']

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

Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs and Costs of That Application / Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first applicant, as trustee of the Argot Trust, should give security for the respondent's costs of defending the principal proceedings." "Whether the Argot Trust had assets which might be made the subject of an order for security for costs in support of the trustee's right of indemnity." 'Whether a self-represented litigant admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales but who has never held a practising certificate can recover the analogue of professional costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The security for costs application was dismissed because, applying the reasons already given in Tyne v UBS AG [2014] FCA 1073 and after considering the Trust's financial statements, the Trust had no assets that could be made subject to an order for security for costs. There was no order as to costs because Mr Tyne sought only the analogue of professional costs, but he had never held a practising certificate and was not entitled to practise in the Federal Court; the Chorley exception therefore did not apply and the Court had no power to award him costs for his time preparing or presenting the case.

Court Disposition

The respondent's interlocutory application for security for costs was dismissed, with no order as to the costs of that application.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rr 1.32 and 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 the following Orders are made from Chambers.' 'The interlocutory application for security for costs filed by the respondent on 18 February 2014 is dismissed.' 'There be no order as to the costs of the application referred to in Order 2.']