Federal Court of Australia
A5b
CATCHHGRDS
Security for costs - applicant not resident or carrvinag on business in Australia - applicant a company carrving on
business in New Zealand - consideration of enforcement procedures available for enforcement of tudaqment obtained in Australian Court - reievance of simplicity of such procedures to yguestion of
whether security should be ordered.
Federal Court Kules, urder 28, rule 3 Judicature Act 1908 (N.Z.+, 3. 50
Reciprocal Enfcorzement wf Tudamenrs Acc Lalit NLD.)
No. 13 of 1384
Coram: Sheppard J. 3 Novemper 1984
Svdnev
Note: For Jediers s2e ow. ©o ko 7,
IN_THE FEDERAL COURT JF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
No. 13 of 1334
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN :
KENT HEATING LIMITED
Applicant AND: COOK-ON CAS PRODUCTS PTY LIMITED AND ANOR. Fespondents 'TORAM: Sheopnard J. 2 HWovemperc 13954
PEASINS FOR JUDGMENT
SIS HONOUR: This 15 an application ror ausitiomal security for costs made by the respondents in an apeliceztion ion which the
applicant 13 a ccmpanv incorporared and carrving on business in New Zealand. [bk does not carry on business in Australia and has
no assets in this countrv. The evidence establisnes that costs
Ui
already incurred and to be incurred bv che respondents before tne
matter will be readv for hearing will amount to approximately
rc ts
G,000. The apolicant has alreadv provided sé@curcicv in tne sum
$10,000. The respundents seex oraers for the wprevisien of an
Go ty
adaitional slu,vud in resoect
tL Kr iw)w. a v. remow ib
bncvurcred ducing tne unterlocurory stages of the proceedinus and an craer that there be liberry to make a Curther applicarion in reseeck oF an amount or amounts to be provided as securlky for 39srs incurred durina
the hearing,
2.
The applicant does not claim to be financiallv embarrassed bv the application. It 1s, apparentlv. a successful and weil to do company in New Zealand with a turnover of some $20,090,009) vearlvy. But 1t opposes the application which has peen made Principally because 1t savs that if ir loses the litigation and is ordered to pay the costs of it. no matcer that rhe erder for costs may involve a verv substantial sum, this Court s order will be able to be enforced reasonablv simelv in New Zealand bv
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