Versatile Homes Pty Ltd v RCMD Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1109

Versatile Homes Pty Ltd v RCMD Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1109

The applications for security for costs were misconceived as there was no credible testimony or rational basis to believe that Versatile Homes Pty Ltd would be unable to meet an adverse costs order, thus the costs of those applications, and the adjournment, should be costs in the cause, and the applicant is entitled to its costs of the costs hearing as the respondents ought not have pressed for indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Abandonment of Security for Costs Applications
Outcome
Security for costs applications abandoned; costs orders made as costs in the cause except for costs of the hearing of 3 October 2012, which respondents must pay forthwith.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'costs Orders' 'interlocutory Applications']
['civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'costs Orders' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Abandonment of Security for Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents are entitled to indemnity costs after abandoning security for costs applications' 'Proper disposition of costs for adjournment and hearing']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for security for costs were misconceived as there was no credible testimony or rational basis to believe that Versatile Homes Pty Ltd would be unable to meet an adverse costs order, thus the costs of those applications, and the adjournment, should be costs in the cause, and the applicant is entitled to its costs of the costs hearing as the respondents ought not have pressed for indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Security for costs applications abandoned; costs orders made as costs in the cause except for costs of the hearing of 3 October 2012, which respondents must pay forthwith.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's costs of its application for security for costs be costs in the cause." "The second, third and fifth respondents' costs of their application for security for costs be costs in the cause." "The applicant's costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the first respondent's application...