FRIGGER -v- MERVYN JONATHON KITAY as liquidator of COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (in liq) [2016] WASCA 204
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASCA 204 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | 28/11/2016 | ||
| Case No: | CACV:62/2016 | 11 NOVEMBER 2016 | |
| Coram: | BUSS P MURPHY JA | 11/11/16 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appellants' applications to vacate hearing and stay appeals dismissed Respondents' applications for security for costs allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ANGELA FRIGGER ANGELA FRIGGER & HARTMUT FRIGGER as trustees for THE FRIGGER SUPER FUND HARTMUT FRIGGER MERVYN JONATHON KITAY as liquidator of COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (in liq) COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (in liq) |
Catchwords: | Appeals Practice and procedure Security for costs Turns on its own facts Appeals Practice and procedure Applications by appellants to vacate hearing and stay appeals Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Frigger v Clavey Legal Pty Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASCA 258 Frigger v Kitay [2016] WASCA 173 Frigger v Mervyn Jonathon Kitay in his capacity as Liquidator of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [No 12] [2016] WASC 241 Frigger v Mervyn Jonathon Kitay in his capacity as liquidator of Computer Accounting & Tax Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [No 9] [2016] WASC 92 Frigger v Mervyn Jonathon Kitay in his capacity as liquidator of Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (in liq) [No 10] [2016] WASC 63 Frigger v Mervyn Jonathon Kitay in his capacity as liquidator of Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (in liq) [No 10] [2016] WASC 63 (S) |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : FRIGGER -v- MERVYN JONATHON KITAY as liquidator of COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (in liq) [2016] WASCA 204 CORAM : BUSS P
- MURPHY JA
- CACV 80 of 2016
- First Appellant
ANGELA FRIGGER & HARTMUT FRIGGER as trustees for THE FRIGGER SUPER FUND
Second Appellant
HARTMUT FRIGGER
Third Appellant
AND
MERVYN JONATHON KITAY as liquidator of COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (in liq)
First Respondent
COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (in liq)
Second Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : ALLANSON J
Citation : FRIGGER -v- MERVYN JONATHON KITAY IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATOR OF COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [No 9] [2016] WASC 92
File No : CIV 2765 of 2010
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : ALLANSON J
Citation : FRIGGER -v- MERVYN JONATHON KITAY IN HIS CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATOR OF COMPUTER ACCOUNTING & TAX PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [No 12] [2016] WASC 241
File No : CIV 2765 of 2010
Catchwords:
Appeals - Practice and procedure - Security for costs - Turns on its own facts
Appeals - Practice and…
Continue reading Frigger v Kitay
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Frigger v Kitay [2016] WASCA 204
- Case
- [2016] WASCA 204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Frigger v Kitay, the appellants sought to appeal against the decision of the trial judge, with the primary focus on the granting of security for costs by the respondents. The dispute centred around the procedural aspects of the appeals, specifically the appellants' applications to vacate the hearing and stay the appeals, as well as the respondents' counter-applications for security for costs. The matter was heard in the court of appeal.
The legal issues before the court revolved around the procedural mechanisms for appeals and the discretion of the court in ordering security for costs. The court was required to consider whether the appellants' applications to vacate the hearing and stay the appeals should be granted, and whether the respondents' applications for security for costs were justified. The court had to assess the relevant factors in determining the appropriateness of security for costs, including the merits of the appeal, the ability of the appellants to fund the appeal, and the potential for an abuse of the court process.
The court found that the appellants' applications to vacate the hearing and stay the appeals turned on their own facts and were not successful. The court held that the granting of security for costs was appropriate in this case, considering the merits of the appeal, the financial position of the appellants, and the risk of an abuse of the court process. The court emphasised that the decision to grant security for costs was discretionary and was made in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. The court dismissed the appellants' applications and allowed the respondents' applications for security for costs.
The final orders of the court were that the appellants' applications to vacate the hearing and stay the appeals were dismissed, and the respondents' applications for security for costs were allowed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of the discretionary nature of security for costs orders and the need for careful consideration of the relevant factors in each case.
The legal issues before the court revolved around the procedural mechanisms for appeals and the discretion of the court in ordering security for costs. The court was required to consider whether the appellants' applications to vacate the hearing and stay the appeals should be granted, and whether the respondents' applications for security for costs were justified. The court had to assess the relevant factors in determining the appropriateness of security for costs, including the merits of the appeal, the ability of the appellants to fund the appeal, and the potential for an abuse of the court process.
The court found that the appellants' applications to vacate the hearing and stay the appeals turned on their own facts and were not successful. The court held that the granting of security for costs was appropriate in this case, considering the merits of the appeal, the financial position of the appellants, and the risk of an abuse of the court process. The court emphasised that the decision to grant security for costs was discretionary and was made in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. The court dismissed the appellants' applications and allowed the respondents' applications for security for costs.
The final orders of the court were that the appellants' applications to vacate the hearing and stay the appeals were dismissed, and the respondents' applications for security for costs were allowed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of the discretionary nature of security for costs orders and the need for careful consideration of the relevant factors in each case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appellants' applications to vacate hearing and stay appeals dismissed
Respondents' applications for security for costs allowed
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.