Quach v ATM Residential Pty Ltd

[2023] ACTCA 9

ACT Court of Appeal16 February 2023

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Appeal proceedings
4. › Whether justice of the case requires order
5. › Prospects of success on appeal
6. › Appellant's capacity to pay adverse costs order
7. › Appellant declared vexatious litigant in another jurisdiction
8. › Appropriate quantum
9. › Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1900, 1901(h), 1902, 5001, 5302
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Constitutional challenge to jurisdiction
4. › Whether ordering security for costs is a judicial function
5. › Whether separation of powers doctrine applies in the ACT
6. › Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Non-compliance with court directions
3. › Late filing of interlocutory application
4. › Whether non-compliance with Registrar's timetable renders subsequent orders invalid
5. › Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1401, 1450, 1452

Quick Take

The grant of security for costs is a judicial function and a constitutional challenge to the court's power to order security based on the separation of powers doctrine is without merit. In the ACT, where there is no strict separation of powers, the power to order security for costs falls within the court's inherent power to regulate its procedure. Non-compliance with a Registrar's timetable for filing an interlocutory application does not of itself render invalid orders subsequently made on that application, provided no practical unfairness is demonstrated.