Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORODS
Practice and procedure - appeal - security for costs -
apprehension that appellant will refuse to pay costs of
appeal ~- appellant able in fact to pay costs ~ whether
security should be ordered.
Federal Court Rules, Order 52 Rule 20
JOSEPH HEDRLIN
ve
THE PROPRIETORS STRATA PLAN No.
No. G71 of 1982
Morling J.
4 August 1982
Sydney.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G71 of 1982
eed
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: JOSEPH HEDRLIN Appellant AND: THE PROPRIETORS STRATA
PLAN No. 3670
. Respondent
MORLING J.
4 AUGUST 1982
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application under Order 52 Rule 20 of the Federal Court rules by a respondent to an appeal pending before this court. The appeal is brought from a decision of
Lockhart J. The respondent applied for the issue of a
bankruptcy notice against the appellant, the application being based on an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales that the appellant should pay to the respondent its costs of proceedings in that court. The bankruptcy notice, dated 20 November 1981, was served on the appellant, who thereupon
filed an affidavit claiming that he had a counter claim, set
off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the sum specified in
the bankruptcy notice - see 41(7) of the Bankruptcy Act. On
14 April 1982 Lockhart J held that he was not satisfied that the appellant had such a counter claim, set off or cross demand. It is from that decision that the present appeal has been brought.
The court record discloses that the appellant has not complied with the rules regarding prosecution of the appeal. However, that matter is not before me today. All that is before me today is a motion by the respondent that the
appellant give security for the costs of the appeal.
In support of the motion evidence has been given that the appellant has failed to pay costs awarded against him in the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is that failure which gave rise to the issue of the bankruptcy notice. However, there 1s no evidence at all establishing that the appellant will be unable
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate