WALTER BAHR AND JOHANNA MARIA BAHR V. MARCUS GRENVILLE NICOLAY AND DAVID GEORGE THOMPSON AND THELMA CONSTANCE THOMPSON AND IAN LANGDON SHELLABEAR AND JENNIFER ELIZABETH SHELLABEAR

WALTER BAHR AND JOHANNA MARIA BAHR V. MARCUS GRENVILLE NICOLAY AND DAVID GEORGE THOMPSON AND THELMA CONSTANCE THOMPSON AND IAN LANGDON SHELLABEAR AND JENNIFER ELIZABETH SHELLABEAR

Justice is best served by refusing to order security for costs where the appellants' only substantial asset is the land in question, the issues on appeal are of general significance beyond the parties, and imposing security would effectively preclude consideration of arguable issues of law.

Parties
Appellant: Walter Bahr; Appellant: Johanna Maria Bahr; Respondent: Marcus Grenville Nicolay; Respondent: David George Thompson; Respondent: Thelma Constance Thompson; Respondent: Ian Langdon Shellabear; Respondent: Jennifer Elizabeth Shellabear
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Pending Appeal / Pre Hearing Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeals, Exercise of Discretion, Torrens Title
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appeals Exercise of Discretion Torrens Title

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Bahr

Appellant

Johanna Maria Bahr

Appellant

Marcus Grenville Nicolay

Respondent

David George Thompson

Respondent

Thelma Constance Thompson

Respondent

Ian Langdon Shellabear

Respondent

Jennifer Elizabeth Shellabear

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Pending Appeal / Pre Hearing Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against impecunious appellants pending appeal
  2. 2 The relevance of appellants' financial position and the importance of issues on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Justice is best served by refusing to order security for costs where the appellants' only substantial asset is the land in question, the issues on appeal are of general significance beyond the parties, and imposing security would effectively preclude consideration of arguable issues of law.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused

Orders

  • Security for costs is not to be ordered against the appellants.