Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott

Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought leave to appeal a decision of Justice Edelman, handed down on 19 May 2023, in which the court dismissed the application for leave to bring a class action. Abbott, the first respondent, opposed the application for leave to appeal. The applicant alleged that the primary judge had erred by failing to make an order for security for costs in its application for leave to bring a class action. The applicant claimed that the primary judge had not undertaken the balancing exercise required under the precedents of Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and Madgwick v Kelly.

The legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in declining to make an order for security for costs. The applicant argued that the primary judge had failed to undertake the balancing exercise required by the relevant authorities. The court considered whether the primary judge had indeed failed to undertake the balancing exercise in the manner required by the authorities. The court noted that the primary judge had undertaken a balancing exercise, but had concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for security for costs. The court found no error that went to the basis of the primary judge’s exercise of discretion, and no basis for concluding that the primary judge had failed to undertake the appropriate balancing.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal. It held that there was no basis for concluding that the primary judge had failed to undertake the appropriate balancing exercise. The court found that the primary judge had properly exercised his discretion and that the applicant had not established that there was an error of law that went to the basis of the primary judge’s exercise of discretion. The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be refused with costs.