Billington, J. v Croker, D Summary

6 7 6 94

JUDGMENT NO. I -

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
AUSTWIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

1 No. ACT G 58 of 1994
DISTRICT REGISTRY j
1

m DIVISION )

QN APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
QF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: JOHN BILLINGTON

Appellant

AND: DAVID CROKER

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER : Neaves J .

FEDERAL COURT OF

DATE OF ORDER 16 September 1994 AUBTRAUA
CMWQPU ,

BERE MADE Canberra , ,
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Within 28 days from the date of this order, the appellant give security to the satisfaction of the District Registrar of the Australian Capital Territory District Registry of this Court in the sum of $3,000 for the payment of costs that may be awarded against him on the hearing of the appeal.

: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

2. If security is not given in accordance with this order, the appeal is to stand dismissed.
3. The costs of the motion for security for costs, notice of which is dated 9 August 1994, be the respondent's costs in the appeal.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) \
BNERAL DIVISION i

9N APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
QF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: JOHN BILLINGTON

Appellant

AND: DAVID CROKER

Respondent

=?P: J -

m: 16 September 1994

. , . I

, r.11,. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In my opinion, this is an appropriate case in which
to order that the appellant give security for the payment of

costs which may be awarded against him on the hearing of his appeal to this Court. In reaching that conclusion I have had

regard to a number of factors.

The first of those factors is the circumstance that the appellant has been unsuccessful in the Magistrates Court and, on appeal, in the Supreme Court of this Territory in his claim for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered in a collision between a motor vehicle driven by him and a motor vehicle driven by the respondent.

I have also considered the prospects of the appellant succeeding in the appeal to this Court in the light of the facts found by the Magistrates Court and not disturbed by the Supreme Court. On the facts so found, both the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court concluded that the collision was caused, not by the negligence of the respondent, but solely by the negligence of the appellant. I am not satisfied that the appeal raises any substantial question of law.

The third factor I have considered is the admitted impecuniosity of the appellant.

I, therefore, order that, within 28 days from the date of this order, the appellant give security to the satisfaction of the District Registrar of the Australian Capital Territory District Registry of this Court in the sum of $3,000 for the payment of costs that may be awarded against

motion for security for costs are to be the respondent's costs him on the hearing of the appeal to this Court, failing which the appeal herein is to stand dismissed. The costs of the in the appeal.

I certify that this and the preceding
page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice Neaves.

Associate " U

Dated: 16 September 1994

Counsel for the appellant : Mr B.J. Salmon QC

Solicitors for the appellant : Higgins Solicitors

Counsel for the respondent : Mr C. Whitelaw

Solicitors for the respondent : Crossin Barker Gosling

Date of hearing : 2 September 1994
Date of judgment : 16 September 1994

John Billington, the appellant, has appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which dismissed his claim for damages for personal injuries against David Croker, the respondent. The claim arose from a collision between two motor vehicles, one driven by the appellant and the other by the respondent. The appellant had previously been unsuccessful in the Magistrates Court, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates Court that the collision was caused by the negligence of the appellant alone. The Federal Court was asked to determine whether the appellant should be required to provide security for the costs of the appeal, given the appellant's impecuniosity and the prospects of the appeal succeeding.

The court considered several factors, including the appellant's unsuccessful attempts in both the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court, the lack of substantial legal questions raised by the appeal, and the appellant's admitted financial difficulties. The court concluded that the appellant should provide security for the costs of the appeal, as the appeal did not appear to have substantial merit and the appellant was unable to pay the costs if the appeal was unsuccessful. The court ordered that the appellant provide security of $3,000 within 28 days, or the appeal would be dismissed. The costs of the motion for security were to be borne by the respondent.

In summary, the Federal Court required the appellant to provide security for the costs of the appeal due to the appellant's unsuccessful attempts in lower courts, the lack of substantial legal questions, and the appellant's financial situation. The court ordered the appellant to provide security of $3,000 within 28 days, or the appeal would be dismissed. The costs of the motion for security were to be borne by the respondent.

Billington, J. v Croker, D

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Date of hearing	: 2 September 1994
Date of judgment	: 16 September 1994