Wyong-Gosford Progressive Community Radio Inc v Australian Communications Media Authority (No 2)

In the case of Wyong-Gosford Progressive Community Radio Inc v Australian Communications Media Authority (No 2), the applicants, Wyong-Gosford Progressive Community Radio Inc (PCR) and another party, were involved in a dispute with the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) and another party (GCB). The applicants sought security for costs, arguing that they were impecunious and could not afford to meet a potential costs order against them. ACMA and GCB opposed the applications, arguing that they had a reasonable prospect of success on the merits of the case. The court had to decide whether to grant the applicants security for costs and, if so, the appropriate amount. The court considered the merits of the applicants' case, the financial position of the applicants, and the potential impact of an order for security on the applicants' ability to continue with the litigation. The court also considered the position of the respondents, particularly GCB, which was a not-for-profit organisation. After considering all of these factors, the court decided to grant security for costs to GCB in the sum of $30,000, to be paid in three equal monthly instalments. The court declined to grant security for costs to ACMA, finding that the delay in the proceedings, ACMA's status as a for-profit organisation, and the potential impact of an additional award of security on the litigation made such an order inappropriate.

The court's reasoning was based on the discretionary considerations outlined in the May decision, which included the risk that a costs order could not be satisfied, the merits of the application, and the interests of justice. The court found that the applicants were impecunious and had made unsuccessful attempts to secure donations for security for costs. The court also found that the prospects of success on the merits of the case were weak, based on the advice provided to the applicants by their counsel. However, the court found that the interests of justice required that GCB be given some assurance of its costs if the application was unsuccessful, particularly given that GCB was a not-for-profit organisation. The court therefore ordered that security for costs be provided to GCB in the sum of $30,000, to be paid in three equal monthly instalments. The court declined to grant security for costs to ACMA, finding that the delay in the proceedings, ACMA's status as a for-profit organisation, and the potential impact of an additional award of security on the litigation made such an order inappropriate. The court also dismissed the first respondent's motion and ordered that its costs be costs in the cause.