Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 496

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 496 SECURITY FOR COSTS – application for security of costs on appeal – whether general rule that security for costs ought not be ordered on appeal should be displaced – prospects of success by appellants – whether conduct of respondents caused impecuniosity of appellants – whether risk of appellants not being able to meet any order for costs on appeal – whether order for security for costs could stifle appeal – whether considerations of public interest apply – access to funding from trusts under which the appellants are beneficiaries – undertaking as to the non-disposal of assets Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56 Federal Court Rules Bates v Omareef Pty Ltd [1998] 536 FCA cited Fletcher v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 110 ALR 233 cited Bell Wholesale Co Ltd v Gates Export Corporation (1984) 2 FCR 1 cited King v Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 289 cited Lucas v Yorke (1983) 50 ALR 228 cited Equity Access Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1989) ATPR 40-972 followed Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (1998)86 FCR 513 referred to Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 referred to

THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN, WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN, BINALONG PTY LIMITED (ACN 007 620 439) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)

(IN LIQUIDATION) v

LUMINIS PTY LTD (ACN 008 027 085), DEANE JOANNE FERGIE, CHERYL ANNE SAUNDERS, ROBERT EDWARD TICKNER and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA S152 OF 2001 TAMBERLIN J ADELAIDE 24 APRIL 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S152 OF 2001

BETWEEN: THOMAS LINCOLN CHAPMAN

WENDY JENNIFER CHAPMAN

BINALONG PTY LIMITED

(ACN 007 620 439)

(RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)