GB Radio (Australia) Pty Ltd v Marchant (No 3)

GB Radio (Australia) Pty Ltd applied to the court to discharge an earlier order that required them to provide security for costs against Marchant. The application was made under Rule 62.05 of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 1998 (Vic), and the dispute involved the plaintiff's request to release them from the obligation to provide security for costs. The court was required to consider whether there had been a material change in circumstances since the initial order was made, and if so, whether the plaintiff's delay in making the application would affect the court's discretion to discharge the order. The court also needed to consider the relevant principles that should guide its decision, drawing on the precedent set in the case of Gordano Building Contractors Ltd v Burgess [1988] 1 WLR 890.

The court examined the principles established in Gordano, which emphasised the importance of considering whether there had been a significant change in circumstances since the initial order was made, and whether the plaintiff's delay in making the application would impact the court's discretion. In this case, the court found that there had been a material change in circumstances, as the plaintiff's financial situation had deteriorated since the initial order was made. However, the court also considered the plaintiff's delay in making the application and found that it had not acted promptly. The court concluded that the delay had prejudiced the defendant, and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient justification for the delay. As a result, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the application to discharge the order for security for costs.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant principles and precedent, and the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the delay in making the application was justified. The court's decision highlights the importance of acting promptly in making applications to discharge orders for security for costs, and the potential consequences of delay. The final orders of the court were that the application to discharge the order for security for costs was refused, and the plaintiff was required to continue to provide security for costs against the defendant.