FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 496
SECURITY FOR COSTS – application for security of costs on appeal – whether general rule that security for costs ought not be ordered on appeal should be displaced – prospects of success by appellants – whether conduct of respondents caused impecuniosity of appellants – whether risk of appellants not being able to meet any order for costs on appeal – whether order for security for costs could stifle appeal – whether considerations of public interest apply – access to funding from trusts under which the appellants are beneficiaries – undertaking as to the non-disposal of assets
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56
Federal Court RulesBates v Omareef Pty Ltd [1998] 536 FCA cited
Fletcher v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 110 ALR 233 cited
Bell Wholesale Co Ltd v Gates Export Corporation (1984) 2 FCR 1 cited
King v Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 289 cited
Lucas v Yorke (1983) 50 ALR 228 cited
Equity Access Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) ATPR 40-972 followed
Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (1998) 86 FCR 513 referred to
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 referred toTHOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN, WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN, BINALONG PTY LIMITED (ACN 007 620 439) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION) v
LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085), DEANE JOANNE FERGIE, CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS, ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIAS152 OF 2001
TAMBERLIN J
ADELAIDE
24 APRIL 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S152 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN
WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN
BINALONG PTY LIMITED
(ACN 007 620 439)
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION)
APPELLANTSAND:
LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085)
DEANE JOANNE FERGIE
CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS
ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENTSJUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 APRIL 2002
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Unless the appellants provide security for costs of the third, fourth and fifth respondents on the appeal in an amount of $200,000 on or before 30 May 2002 in a form satisfactory to the Registrar the appeal is to be stayed until further order.
2. The parties have liberty to apply on forty-eight (48) hours notice.
3.The appellants shall pay seventy per cent (70%) of the costs of this application for security for costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S152 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN
WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN
BINALONG PTY LIMITED
(ACN 007 620 439)
(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION)
APPELLANTSAND:
LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085)
DEANE JOANNE FERGIE
CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS
ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
24 APRIL 2002
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for security for costs which is made…
Continue reading Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 496
- Case
- [2002] FCA 496
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellants were required to provide security for the costs of the respondents in relation to the appeal. This required the court to consider the precedent and statutory framework surrounding security for costs, particularly in the context of the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The court also had to determine the appropriate amount of security and assess the financial implications for the appellant.
The court found that the appellants were indeed required to provide security for costs to the third, fourth, and fifth respondents, as the appeal had prospects of success and the amount of security was reasonable. The court emphasised the need for the appellants to comply with the security order to ensure that the respondents were not prejudiced by the costs of the appeal. The court also noted the appellants' obligation to provide the security within a specified timeframe and determined that the appellants should bear a significant portion of the costs associated with this application. This decision underscored the importance of financial responsibility in litigation and the court's role in managing the costs associated with legal proceedings.
The orders of the court included a requirement for the appellants to provide security for costs in the amount of $200,000 by a specified date, with liberty for the parties to apply for further orders. Additionally, the appellants were directed to pay seventy per cent of the costs of the application for security for costs. Failure to comply with these orders would result in the stay of the appeal until further order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Unless the appellants provide security for costs of the third, fourth and fifth respondents on the appeal in an amount of $200,000 on or before 30 May 2002 in a form satisfactory to the Registrar the appeal is to be stayed until further order.
2. The parties have liberty to apply on forty-eight (48) hours notice.
3. The appellants shall pay seventy per cent (70%) of the costs of this application for security for costs.
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
Established by: TAMBERLIN J
Full text does not contain this section.