Nugawela v Dudley (Trustee)

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nugawela v Dudley (Trustee) [2023] FCA 1603

Appeal from: Nugawela v Dudley (Trustee) (No 3) [2023] FCA 674
File number: WAD 162 of 2023
Judgment of: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 14 December 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for security for costs - consideration of prospects of success of appeal - orders for security would not stultify reasonably arguable appeal - appellant's impecuniosity - history of appellant's non-compliance with procedural directions - security for costs of appeal ordered
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 39.06, Schedule 3
Cases cited:

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Mathews v All Options Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1972

Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 34
Date of hearing: 14 December 2023
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Touyz
Solicitor for the Respondent: Greenstone Legal

ORDERS

WAD 162 of 2023
BETWEEN:

PATRICK ALLEN NUGAWELA

Appellant

AND:

GREGORY BRUCE DUDLEY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ESTATE OF PATRICK NUGAWELA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 DECEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appellant must provide security for the costs of the appeal in the sum of $50,000 by payment of that sum into the Court.

2.The appeal is stayed until the security required by paragraph 1 of these orders is provided.

3.The appellant has liberty to apply in relation to the manner of providing the security for costs.

4.If the security for costs in accordance with these orders as varied is not provided by 19 February 2024, then the appeal is dismissed.

5.By 4.00 pm AWST on 19 December 2023, the respondent must file and serve a bill of costs for the security for costs application.

6.By 4.00 pm AWST on 25 January 2024, the appellant may provide a written submission of no longer than 3 pages in length in response to the respondent's bill of costs.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(edited from the transcript)

JACKSON J:

  1. On 20 June 2023 a judge of this Court dismissed an application made by Patrick Nugawela against his trustee in bankruptcy, Gregory Bruce Dudley.  The application was dismissed on the basis of long delay by Dr Nugawela in complying with procedural directions made by the primary judge.  During much of that delay, the proceeding had been stayed as a result of non‑compliance with procedural directions.  Dr Nugawela has appealed from the dismissal order.  The respondent, Mr Dudley, now seeks security for the costs of the appeal.

    The proceeding before the primary judge

  2. The background of the matter need not be set out in detail.  Dr Nugawela's claim, as dismissed by the primary judge, concerned allegations that Mr Dudley should have assigned litigation against the Australian Taxation Office to him and should not have abandoned proceedings that Dr Nugawela…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nugawela v Dudley (Trustee) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] FCA 1603
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dr Nugawela appealed an order for security for costs in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Dudley, the respondent, had been appointed as the trustee of Dr Nugawela’s bankruptcy estate. Mr Dudley applied for security for costs in relation to the appeal on the basis of Dr Nugawela's impecuniosity and his non-compliance with procedural directions. Dr Nugawela did not file evidence in opposition to the application for security for costs, and did not appear at the hearing. The Court was required to consider whether Dr Nugawela's impecuniosity, non-compliance with procedural directions, and the prospects of success of the appeal justified ordering security for costs.

The Court noted that Dr Nugawela's impecuniosity was a relevant factor in deciding whether to order security for costs. The Court also noted that Dr Nugawela's non-compliance with procedural directions was a relevant factor in deciding whether to order security for costs. The Court considered that the orders for security for costs would not stultify a reasonably arguable appeal. The Court found that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and that the orders for security for costs would not stultify a reasonably arguable appeal. The Court ordered that Dr Nugawela provide security for the costs of the appeal in the sum of $50,000 by payment of that sum into the Court. The appeal is stayed until the security required by paragraph 1 of these orders is provided. If the security for costs in accordance with these orders as varied is not provided by 19 February 2024, then the appeal is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant must provide security for the costs of the appeal in the sum of $50,000 by payment of that sum into the Court.

2. The appeal is stayed until the security required by paragraph 1 of these orders is provided.

3. The appellant has liberty to apply in relation to the manner of providing the security for costs.

4. If the security for costs in accordance with these orders as varied is not provided by 19 February 2024, then the appeal is dismissed.

5. By 4.00 pm AWST on 19 December 2023, the respondent must file and serve a bill of costs for the security for costs application.

6. By 4.00 pm AWST on 25 January 2024, the appellant may provide a written submission of no longer than 3 pages in length in response to the respondent's bill of costs.

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

As best one can discern, Dr Nugawela appears to be appealing on the basis that the primary judge erred in exercising his discretion to dismiss the application without assessing its substance. It is not clear what errors are said to have been made, but Dr Nugawela does appear to contend that the primary judge should have accepted the chronology he proffered on the day of the hearing on 20 June 2023 as compliance with the earlier orders. He also appears to contend that the delay did not prejudice Mr Dudley. He also relies on an assertion that the 'dismissed action sought to clarify important points of law pertaining to bankruptcy and trustee duties'.The evidence on the application for security for costs Mr Dudley's application for security for costs relies on two affidavits sworn by his solicitor, Colin Touyz. The first affidavit annexes a further affidavit which Mr Dudley swore in support of the application for security for costs that had been made in the proceeding at first instance. In summary, according to Mr Dudley's affidavit:(1)A sequestration order was made in respect of Dr Nugawela on 21 February 2017 and Mr Dudley was appointed trustee in bankruptcy.(2)Mr Dudley had not been able to obtain a statement of affairs from Dr Nugawela.(3)By operation of law, all proceedings which had been the subject of Dr Nugawela's application had been abandoned.(4)If Mr Dudley were to be successful in the proceeding at first instance, Dr Nugawela would have no funds to pay any costs order in Mr Dudley's favour.(5)The further legal costs that would be incurred if the proceeding went ahead would be in the vicinity of $50,000 to $75,000. Mr Dudley's affidavit was sworn on 15 February 2018, and there is no evidence updating it. But it must be acknowledged that Dr Nugawela was given the opportunity to file evidence in opposition to the application for security for costs in this appeal but has not done so. Not only has he not filed any evidence in opposition to the application, he did not appear at this hearing of the application for security for costs, and did not comply with an order requiring him to file written submissions on the application. As well as Mr Touyz's affidavit of 4 August 2023 annexing Mr Dudley's earlier affidavit, Mr Touyz has sworn a further affidavit on 16 November 2023 containing an estimate of the costs of the appeal broken down according to the scale found in Schedule 3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The total of the estimate is $73,300.Principles The principles to be applied in an application of this kind were helpfully summarised by O'Bryan J in Mathews v All Options Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1972, as follows:[12]The application for security is made under s 56(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rule 36.09(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Section 56(1) authorises the Court or a Judge to order an appellant to give security for the payment of costs that may be awarded against him or her. Rule 36.09(1) provides that a party may apply for an order that:(a)an appellant give security for the costs of an appeal, and for the manner, time and terms for giving the security;(b)the appeal be stayed until security is given; and(c)if the appellant fails to comply with the order to provide security within the time specified in the order, the appeal be stayed or dismissed.[13]The applicable principles were explained by Tamberlin J in Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 642 at [11] and [12]:[11]The Court has a wide discretion in relation to the grant of security for costs. There is no general rule because each case depends upon its own circumstances. In relation to an appeal, Courts have given weight to the injustice that might be caused to a successful litigant if the litigant is compelled to contest the matter for a second time without the probability of obtaining the costs if ultimately successful: Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34 at 38. In Equity Access v Westpac Banking Corp (1989) ATPR 40-972, Hill J at 50,635 listed some of the relevant matters to be considered when deciding whether security for costs ought to be awarded:•the prospects of success;•the quantum of risk that a costs order will not be satisfied;•whether the making of an order would be oppressive in that it would stifle the reasonably arguable claim;•whether any impecuniosity of the appellants arises out of the conduct complained of;•whether there are aspects of public interest which weigh in the balance against such an order;•whether there are any particular discretionary matters peculiar to the circumstances of the case.[12]Although Courts will be reluctant to make an order for security for costs against a natural person on account of his or her impecuniosity, there is no general principle that prevents the making of such an order.[14] In Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34, Bowen LJ said (at 38):The general rule is that poverty is no bar to a litigant, that, from time immemorial, has been the rule at common law, and also, I believe, in equity. There is an exception in the case of appeals, but there the appellant has had the benefit of a decision by one of Her Majesty's courts, and so an insolvent party is not excluded from the Courts, but only prevented, if he cannot find security, from dragging his opponent from one Court to another.[15]That principle, that the court will more readily grant security against a litigant who is impecunious in the case of appellate proceedings, has been followed and applied on many occasions: see for example Skyring v Sweeney [1999] FCA 61 at [6] per Spender J; Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 at [20] per Mansfield J; Clack v Collins (No 1) [2010] FCA 513 at [7]-[8] per Jagot J; Sheather v Staples Waste Removals Pty Limited [2012] FCA 998 at [18] per Nicholas J; Carey v Freehills [2014] FCA 325 at [16]-[17] per Marshall J.Consideration

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.