Christou v Stanton Partners Australasia Pty Ltd

[2011] WASCA 176

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Delay in making application
4. › Whether delay alone warranted refusal
5. › Whether security should be limited to future costs
6. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335
7. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 25
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Relevant factors in exercise of discretion
4. › Whether defendant's non-compliance with case management directions a relevant factor
5. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Threshold requirement
4. › Whether sufficient evidence to enliven discretion
5. › Whether mere speculation as to insolvency sufficient
6. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335(1)
1. Appeal
2. › Interlocutory decisions
3. › Leave to appeal
4. › Whether original decision wrong or attended by sufficient doubt
5. › Whether substantial injustice would result

Quick Take

A defendant's non-compliance with case management directions is not ordinarily a relevant factor in the exercise of the discretion to order security for costs, as the discretion is not a means of punishing procedural default. A party which unreasonably delays in making a security for costs application cannot ordinarily expect to obtain security for costs incurred during the period of delay, nor for costs of interlocutory steps it was ordered to complete before the application but failed to complete due to its own default. The onus lies on the applicant for security to adduce material sufficiently persuasive to permit a rational belief that the plaintiff would be unable to pay costs; mere speculation as to insolvency is insufficient.