Ninan v Hannigan

The applicants, who had been unsuccessful in obtaining security for costs in the Federal Court, filed three originating processes seeking review of the Registrar’s decisions regarding their ability to appeal. The respondents, including the City of Mandurah and St George Bank Ltd, sought summary dismissal or security for costs in the new proceedings. The primary legal issues involved whether the applicants were entitled to appeal the orders for security for costs and whether the Registrar’s advice could be relied upon. The court held that the applicants did not have the right to appeal the security for costs orders under the Federal Court Rules, as the relevant rules pertained to interlocutory judgments and judgments set aside or varied after entry, neither of which applied. The court also found that the Registrar’s advice, which suggested the applicants could appeal if unsuccessful in varying the order, was incorrect as it was not possible to pursue both an interlocutory application and an appeal simultaneously. The applicants' arguments based on reliance on the Registrar’s advice were therefore unsuccessful.

The court dismissed the applicants’ claims, affirming that the Registrar’s advice was not binding and did not confer any rights on the applicants. The applicants had not demonstrated any entitlement under the Rules to file the documents in question, and the advice given by the Registrar did not alter this outcome. The court also noted that the applicants' failure to comply with the orders for security for costs had resulted in the dismissal of their previous proceedings, and there were no grounds to overturn the security orders. Consequently, the applicants' applications for review were denied, and their attempts to appeal the security for costs orders were rejected.