Legal Research
Cases
Aboriginal Group Training (WA) v PEEDAC Pty Ltd

Aboriginal Group Training (WA) v PEEDAC Pty Ltd

Case [2004] WASC 51 26 March 2004

Security for Costs

Jurisdiction

Abuse of Process

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: ABORIGINAL GROUP TRAINING WA (INC) -v- PEEDAC PTY LTD [2004] WASC 51

CORAM: MASTER NEWNES

HEARD: 2 MARCH 2004

DELIVERED : 26 MARCH 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 2207 of 2003

BETWEEN: ABORIGINAL GROUP TRAINING WA (INC)
Plaintiff
AND
PEEDAC PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Security for costs - O 25 - Plaintiff charitable organisation - Omission of address from writ - Financial support by third party - Relevant principles - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Rules, O 25

Result:

Security for costs refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr A J Aristei
Defendant: Mr R J Price

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Tan & Tan
Defendant: Marks & Sands

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bond v Trustee of the Property of Alan Bond, A bankrupt (1994) 32 ALD 770; (1994) 20 AAR 1
Brooks v Wilkins [1927] WN 136
Chellew v Brown [1923] All ER 506
Fat‑sel Pty Ltd v Brambles Holdings Ltd (1985) ATPR 40‑544
Griffith v Ricketts (1846) 67 ER 884
Hurst v Padwick (1848) 17 LJ Ch NS 169
Knight v Cory (1863) 32 LJ Ch NS 127
Knight v Ponsonby [1925] 1 KB 545
Lal Lal Iron Co NL v Mulligan (1885) 11 VLR 58
Manby v Bewicke 8 De G M & G 468
Player v Anderson (1846) 60 ER 556
Sarac v Croatian House Hrvatski Dom (Inc) unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950675; 12 December 1995
Simpson v Burton (1839) 8 LJ Ch NS 328
Smith v Cornfoot (1847) 1 De G & Sm 684
Thune v London Properties Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 972

Case(s) also cited:

Brundza v Robbie and Co (No 2) (1952) 88 CLR 171
Impex Pty Ltd v Crowner Products Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 440
M A Productions Pty Ltd v Austarama Television Pty Ltd (1982) 1 ACLC 404
Memutu Pty Ltd v Lissenden (1983) 8 ACLR 364
Sabaza Pty Ltd v AMP Society (1981) 6 ACLR 194
Shannon v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [1994] 2 Qd R 563
Sheen v Burke [1993] 1 VR 584
Yandil Holdings Pty Ltd v Insurance Company of North America (1985) 3 ACLC 542

MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by the defendant for an order for security for costs under O 25 of the Supreme Court Rules.
The proceedings were commenced by the plaintiff in October 2003. The plaintiff is an association incorporated pursuant to the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA). The defendant is a company incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Its one fully paid share is held by Perth Employment Enterprise Development Aboriginal Corporation, an Aboriginal association incorporated pursuant to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth). Both the plaintiff and the defendant are non‑profit, charitable organisations. The defendant is funded by the Commonwealth Government through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services ("ATSIS") to operate the Community Development Employment Project ("CDEP") within the Perth…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aboriginal Group Training (WA) v PEEDAC Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Aboriginal Group Training (WA) v PEEDAC Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 51
Case: [2004] WASC 51
Decision Date: 26 MARCH 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court heard a case between Aboriginal Group Training (WA) and PEEDAC Pty Ltd, which revolved around a dispute concerning the security for costs. The plaintiff, a charitable organisation, sought to have the defendant, PEEDAC Pty Ltd, provide security for the costs of the proceedings. The omission of the plaintiff's address from the writ was a notable issue, and the plaintiff was receiving financial support from a third party. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was eligible for security for costs, considering the principles set out in Order 25 of the Federal Court Rules. The court had to examine the plaintiff's charitable status, the financial support it received from a third party, and whether these factors influenced the plaintiff's ability to provide security for costs.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the omission of the plaintiff's address from the writ was a valid reason for granting security for costs and whether the financial support from a third party affected the plaintiff's ability to provide security for costs. The court considered the relevant principles, including the plaintiff's charitable status and the need for it to protect its funds for its charitable purposes. The court also took into account the fact that the plaintiff was receiving financial support from a third party, which could potentially impact its ability to provide security for costs. The court had to determine whether these factors, in combination, justified the grant of security for costs.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the specific circumstances of the case, including the omission of the plaintiff's address from the writ and the financial support from a third party. The court concluded that the omission of the address was not a valid reason for granting security for costs, as it did not affect the plaintiff's ability to defend the proceedings. However, the court found that the financial support from a third party did impact the plaintiff's ability to provide security for costs. The court considered that the plaintiff's charitable status and the need to protect its funds for its charitable purposes were relevant factors in determining whether security for costs should be granted. Ultimately, the court decided that the plaintiff was not eligible for security for costs, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that PEEDAC Pty Ltd was not required to provide security for costs, and the plaintiff's application for security for costs was dismissed. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the unique facts of this case and that each case would be assessed on its own merits. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances of a case when determining whether to grant security for costs, particularly in relation to charitable organisations and financial support from third parties.

Orders