Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 1)[2013] FCA 798

Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 1)[2013] FCA 798

The applicant had already appealed the 20 April 2012 costs orders within time, and that appeal had been dismissed automatically when security for costs was not provided pursuant to Emmett J's orders. Because the factual premise for an extension of time was not made out and a further application for leave to appeal from orders already the subject of a dismissed appeal was formally an abuse of process while the dismissal order remained in effect, neither extension of time nor leave to appeal should be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'security for Costs' 'abuse of Process']
['practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs Orders' 'security for Costs' 'abuse of Process']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to permit the applicant to seek leave to appeal from the costs orders made on 20 April 2012.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the applicant had already appealed the costs orders and that appeal had been dismissed automatically for failure to provide security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had already appealed the 20 April 2012 costs orders within time, and that appeal had been dismissed automatically when security for costs was not provided pursuant to Emmett J's orders. Because the factual premise for an extension of time was not made out and a further application for leave to appeal from orders already the subject of a dismissed appeal was formally an abuse of process while the dismissal order remained in effect, neither extension of time nor leave to appeal should be granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']