Benjamin v GB Franchising Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

JOHN ROBERT BENJAMIN v GB FRANCHISING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
[2011] ACTCA 26 (8 December 2011)

PROCEDURE – costs – security for costs – payment out of court of security lodged.

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 6, 21, 1000, 1013, 1906, 5001, 6013, 6450, Divs2.17.5, 2.17.8, Pt 6.2
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 676

Douglas, the Hon Justice JS, (ed), Civil Procedure Queensland (LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, NSW:  1999), looseleaf

Benjamin v GB Franchising Australia Pty Ltd (2008) 1 ACTLR 287
Hughes v Janrule Pty Ltd (2011) 252 FLR 397
Benjamin v GB Franchising Australia Pty Ltd [2010] ACTCA 4
Dwight v Commissioner for Taxation (1992) 37 FCR 178
Duncan (as Trustee for the Bankrupt Estate of Garrett) v National Australia Bank Ltd (2006) 95 SASR 208
Summer Hill Business Estate Pty Ltd v Equititrust Ltd [2011] NSWCA 211
Australian Gold Recovery Co Ltd v Gray (1900) 25 VLR 677

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 30 of 2007
No. SC 441 of 2006

Judge:          Refshauge J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           8 December 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 30 of 2007
  )          No. SC 441 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JOHN ROBERT BENJAMIN

Appellant

AND:GB FRANCHISING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 105 196 389)

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  8 December 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. Under r 6 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), so much of the rules are dispensed with as would prevent the making of this order.

  1. The sum of $5,000 be, subject to this order, paid out to John Benjamin, PO Box 7316, St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria, 8004.

  1. Despite order 2, payment not be made until five days after a sealed copy of this order is served on the appellant and the respondent.

  1. A sealed copy of this order be prepared in the Registry and service be effected by the Registry under r 6450 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), on the appellant and the respondent at their respective addresses for service, namely Fong & Co, Solicitors, 3/2-8 Burwood Highway, East Burwood, Victoria, 3151 for the appellant and Williams Love and Nicol, Level 8, 28 University Avenue, Canberra, ACT, 2601 for the respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 30 of 2007
  )          No. SC 441 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JOHN ROBERT BENJAMIN

Appellant

AND:GB FRANCHISING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 105 196 389)

Respondent

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  8 December 2011
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

REFSHAUGE J:

  1. On 1 July 2008, I ordered that the Appellant, John Benjamin, provide security for costs in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Benjamin v GB Franchising Australia Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] ACTCA 26
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Benjamin v GB Franchising Australia Pty Ltd*, the applicant sought an order for the payment out of court of security that had been lodged by the respondent. The application was heard by Refshauge J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent, having lodged security for costs, was entitled to have that security paid out to it, notwithstanding the general rules of court.

Refshauge J determined that the Court had the power to dispense with the ordinary rules of court under rule 6 of the *Court Procedures Rules 2006* (ACT). This power allowed the Court to make orders that might otherwise be prevented by the strict application of the rules. Consequently, the Court ordered that so much of the rules be dispensed with as would prevent the making of an order for the payment out of court of the security lodged by the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Under r 6 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), so much of the rules are dispensed with as would prevent the making of this order.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.