Ritson v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner

The case of Ritson v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner concerns an interlocutory application for security for costs. The applicant, Mr Ritson, seeks to appeal against a decision of the primary judge that dismissed his claims against the first respondent, the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Ritson, who is of limited financial means, has poor prospects of success in his appeal, and whether he has an outstanding costs debt in the court below. The court considered the relevant principles when security for costs is sought in an appeal and held that an order for security in the amount of $25,000 would be appropriate. The court also held that the costs of the application should follow the event and be borne by Mr Ritson.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that Mr Ritson was given a reasonable timeframe to respond to the concerns of the first respondent, and that he was dishonest when he completed the nomination form. The court further held that the decision-maker had authority to make the decision dismissing Mr Ritson, and that there was no evidence that he was unfit or unable to respond to the matters to which he was required to respond by the deadline. The court noted that the standard fees set out in the Federal Court of Australia National Guide to Counsel Fees and sch 3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) are a relevant guide for any consideration of the quantum of an order for security for costs. The court held that the appeal should be stayed until security is given and that the appeal be dismissed in the event that the appellant fails to comply with the order. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of this application on a party-party basis.