Mead v Mead (No 2)

The two appeals in this matter were heard by Jacobson J in the Federal Court of Australia. Lucy Guitar Mead and Lee Chin Lien Yang, the appellants, sought to appeal against orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court concerning security for costs and sequestration orders. Colin Anthony Mead, the respondent, argued that the appeals should be dismissed due to the appellants' failure to comply with the Court's order to provide security for costs. The legal issues before the Court were whether the appeals could be dismissed due to the appellants' failure to comply with the order for security for costs and whether the appeals constituted a re-ventilation of matters already argued.

The Court found that it had the power to dismiss the appeals under section 25(2B)(bb)(i) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 due to the appellants' failure to comply with the direction of the Court. The Court also found that the appeals could be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 25(2B)(ba) of the same Act. The appellants' failure to provide security for costs in accordance with the Court's orders was considered as the reason for the want of prosecution. The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the arguments presented by the appellants were at best slim and merely a re-ventilation of matters already argued. The rejection of the applications for special leave by the High Court was also considered an important factor in the Court's decision.

The Court dismissed both appeals and made an order that the appeals be dismissed in each matter. The final orders were made on 6 May 2010 in Sydney, and the appellants were required to pay costs associated with the appeals.