Frigger v Banning (No 2)

Case [2016] FCA 749


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Frigger v Banning (No 2) [2016] FCA 749

File number: WAD 607 of 2015
Judge: BARKER J
Date of judgment: 24 June 2016
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – security for costs – applicants in default of security for costs order – application to dismiss proceedings – application to vary security for costs order – whether material change of circumstances – whether discovery of new material that could not reasonably have been before the Court at security for costs hearing
Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56(3)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) RR 1.32, 5.23, 39.05, Sch 2, Sch 3 cl 11.1

Cases cited:

Austcorp Project No 20 Pty Ltd v The Trust Co (PTAL) Limited, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) (No 4) [2015] FCA 850

Frigger v Banning [2016] FCA 359

Kitay, in the matter of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] FCA 720

Date of hearing: 3 June 2016
Date of last submissions: 22 June 2016
Registry: Western Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 31
Counsel for the Applicants: The Applicants appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr TR Stephenson
Solicitor for the Respondents: Eastwood Sweeney Law

ORDERS

WAD 607 of 2015
BETWEEN:

ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER

First Applicant

HARTMUT HUBERT JOSEF FRIGGER

Second Applicant

AND:

SANDRA MAY BANNING

First Respondent

DONALD CAMPBELL-SMITH

Second Respondent

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 082 879 641 (and another named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BARKER J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 JUNE 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The order for security for costs against the applicants made 13 April 2016 is varied in respect of quantum so that instead of security being ordered in the sum $75,000, it is now ordered in the sum of $60,000.

2.If the order for security for costs against the applicants in the varied sum of $60,000 is not complied with on or before 4pm on 1 July 2016, the originating application and proceeding will stand dismissed and the applicants shall pay to the respondents the costs of the proceeding, to be taxed.

3.The costs of the respondents' interlocutory application filed 2 May 2016 be costs in the cause.

4.The costs of the applicants' interlocutory application filed 31 May 2016 be costs in the cause.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BARKER J:

  1. On 13 April 2016, the Court made the following order for security for costs in this proceeding against the applicants, Mrs and Mr Frigger (who may also be referred to as the Friggers):

    1.The applicants do pay into Court within seven (7) days of the date of this order the sum of $75,000 by way of security for costs in relation to the first stage of this proceeding up to and including a hearing…

Continue reading Frigger v Banning (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Frigger v Banning (No 2) [2016] FCA 749
Case
[2016] FCA 749
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Frigger v Banning (No 2) involved the applicants, Frigger, seeking to have an order for security for costs varied, while the respondents, Banning, sought to have the proceedings dismissed due to the applicants' failure to comply with an existing security for costs order. The applicants also sought to have new evidence considered in relation to the security for costs order, which they argued constituted a material change in circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there had been a material change in circumstances since the initial security for costs order was made and whether the discovery of new material, which could not reasonably have been before the court at the time of the original order, warranted a variation in the order. The court had to balance the applicants' right to a fair hearing against the respondents' need for protection against the financial risk posed by the applicants.

The court found that while the applicants had indeed experienced a material change in circumstances since the initial security for costs order, the new evidence they sought to rely upon did not constitute such a change. The court emphasised the importance of the applicants' responsibility to disclose all relevant information at the time of the original hearing. Consequently, the court varied the quantum of the security for costs order from $75,000 to $60,000 but declined to consider the new evidence. If the applicants failed to provide the varied security by the specified deadline, the proceedings would be dismissed, and they would be liable for the respondents' costs.

The final orders of the court included a reduction in the security for costs to $60,000, a dismissal of the proceedings if the applicants did not comply with the new security order by 1 July 2016, and the allocation of costs for the interlocutory applications to the respective parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The order for security for costs against the applicants made 13 April 2016 is varied in respect of quantum so that instead of security being ordered in the sum $75,000, it is now ordered in the sum of $60,000.

2. If the order for security for costs against the applicants in the varied sum of $60,000 is not complied with on or before 4pm on 1 July 2016, the originating application and proceeding will stand dismissed and the applicants shall pay to the respondents the costs of the proceeding, to be taxed.

3. The costs of the respondents' interlocutory application filed 2 May 2016 be costs in the cause.

4. The costs of the applicants' interlocutory application filed 31 May 2016 be costs in the cause.

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.