Hussain & Anor v Ngep & Anor (No 3)

[2015] ACTCA 50

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Non-payment of security
4. › Dismissal of proceedings for failure to comply with security order
5. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1904
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Appeal from interlocutory order for security for costs
4. › Whether right of appeal exists from decision of single judge constituting Court of Appeal
5. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37J(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Striking out
3. › Whether rule for striking out deficient pleadings applicable to non-payment of security for costs
4. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 425
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Whether leave to appeal required to challenge refusal of leave to appeal
5. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5012

Quick Take

Rule 425 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), which concerns striking out deficient pleadings, is not the appropriate procedural vehicle for seeking dismissal of proceedings for non-payment of security for costs; r 1904 is the correct rule. A refusal of leave to appeal is an interlocutory order requiring leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Case Details

Citation[2015] ACTCA 50

CourtACTCA

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on3

2015Hussain & Anor v Ngep & Anor (No 2)ACTCA 42
2015Hussain & Anor v Ngep & Anor (No 1)ACTCA 46
2015Hussain & Anor v Ngep & AnorACTSC 71

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in