FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Craven v Ready Flowers Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 693
Citation: Craven v Ready Flowers Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 693 Appeal from: Craven v Ready Flowers Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 467 Parties: GORDON CRAVEN v READY FLOWERS PTY LTD ACN 115 489 480 File number: QUD 191 of 2014 Judge: RANGIAH J Date of judgment: 18 June 2014 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for security for costs of appeal – impecuniosity of appellant – prospects of success – no delay – application granted Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 41(6A)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth) r 36.09(1)
Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld)Cases cited: Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34
Tait v Bindal People [2002] FCA 322Date of hearing: 18 June 2014 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 26 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Ms C Muir Solicitor for the Respondent: Archibald & Brown
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 191 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: GORDON CRAVEN
AppellantAND: READY FLOWERS PTY LTD ACN 115 489 480
Respondent
JUDGE:
RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 JUNE 2014
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant provide security for the respondent’s costs of the appeal in an amount of $10,000 in a form acceptable to the Registrar of the Court on or before 16 July 2014.
2.The event that the appellant does not provide such security for the respondent’s costs on or before 16 July 2014, the appeal stand dismissed.
3.The costs of the application for security for costs are reserved.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 191 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: GORDON CRAVEN
AppellantAND: READY FLOWERS PTY LTD ACN 115 489 480
Respondent
JUDGE:
RANGIAH J
DATE:
18 JUNE 2014
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The appellant has appealed against a judgment given by Dowsett J dismissing the appellant’s application for an extension of time to comply with a bankruptcy notice and other orders. The application presently before the Court is an application brought by the respondent for security for its costs of the appeal.
The procedural history of these and related proceedings is lengthy and somewhat complex. It is necessary to describe that history in order to identify the issues involved in this application.
The appellant commenced proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court on 10 March 2009 alleging that the respondent had, since 2006, contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) by making misrepresentations concerning the conduct of the respondent’s business of online sales of flowers.
The respondent contended that it had sold the business to another company on 1 February 2009. On 25…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Craven v Ready Flowers 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] FCA 693
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the appellant had demonstrated impecuniosity and whether the prospects of success for the appeal were sufficient to warrant an order for security for costs. Additionally, the court considered whether the application had been made without delay and whether granting the application would cause any injustice. The court had to balance these factors to determine whether to grant the application for security for costs.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the appellant had demonstrated impecuniosity and that there were reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The application had been made without delay, and granting the application would not cause any injustice. Given these findings, the court granted the respondent's application for security for costs. The court ordered that the appellant must provide security for the respondent’s costs of the appeal in the amount of $10,000 by a specified date, with the consequence that the appeal would be dismissed if the security was not provided on time. The costs of the application were reserved for further determination.
The final orders of the court mandated that the appellant provide the required security for the respondent’s costs of the appeal, specifying the amount and the deadline. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. The costs associated with the application for security for costs were reserved, indicating that they would be addressed at a later stage. This ruling underscored the importance of financial preparedness in appellate litigation and the court's role in ensuring that such proceedings do not unduly burden financially disadvantaged parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant provide security for the respondent’s costs of the appeal in an amount of $10,000 in a form acceptable to the Registrar of the Court on or before 16 July 2014.
2. The event that the appellant does not provide such security for the respondent’s costs on or before 16 July 2014, the appeal stand dismissed.
3. The costs of the application for security for costs are reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.