van Oostveen, William v Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 1261

van Oostveen, William v Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 1261

The security for costs application was dismissed because, despite the appellant's weak prospects on appeal, his assets appeared more than sufficient or almost sufficient to meet existing estimated costs, rates arrears and the costs of the appeal, and the security application itself would likely cause undue hardship...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Interlocutory Motions / Application for Security for Costs and Motion to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
Motion to strike out appeal adjourned to the Registrar for listing before the Full Court; motion for security for costs dismissed; no order as to costs of the proceedings before Dowsett J.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'strike Out of Appeal as Incompetent' 'single Judge Power in Appeals' 'federal Court Rules']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'strike Out of Appeal as Incompetent' 'single Judge Power in Appeals' 'federal Court Rules']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Interlocutory Motions / Application for Security for Costs and Motion to Strike Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the motion to strike out the appeal as incompetent should be dealt with by a single judge or adjourned for listing before the Full Court.' "Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for the Commonwealth's costs of the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The security for costs application was dismissed because, despite the appellant's weak prospects on appeal, his assets appeared more than sufficient or almost sufficient to meet existing estimated costs, rates arrears and the costs of the appeal, and the security application itself would likely cause undue hardship given its substantial estimated cost. The strike-out motion was adjourned for listing before the Full Court because the judge considered there was no single-judge power under O 20 r 2 in connection with an appeal.

Court Disposition

Motion to strike out appeal adjourned to the Registrar for listing before the Full Court; motion for security for costs dismissed; no order as to costs of the proceedings before Dowsett J.

Orders

  • ['Adjourn the motion to strike out the appeal to the Registrar for listing before the Full Court.' 'Dismiss the motion for security for costs.' 'There will be no order as to the costs of the proceedings before me today.']