Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 992

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 992 Citation: Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 992

Appeal: Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 242

Parties: VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE v COMMONWEALTH SECURITIES LIMITED, RALPH NORRIS and MICHAEL BLOMFIELD VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE v COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA and BARBARA CHAPMAN

File numbers: NSD 526 of 2012 NSD 527 of 2012

Judge: EMMETT J

Date of judgment: 14 August 2012

Corrigendum: 14 September 2012

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for security for costs for appeal – whether reasonable prospects of success on appeal – whether the appeals will be stifled or stultified if order for security made – likely length and costs of appeal

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 56 Federal Court of Australia Rules 2011, r 36.09

Cases cited: Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros [2004] FCA 1334 Clack v Collins (No 1) [2010] FCA 513

Date of hearing: 14 August 2012

Place: Sydney

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 104

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr PE King

Solicitor for the Appellant: McKell's Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P Gray SC with Mr M Richardson

Solicitor for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2012] FCA 992 1 In paragraph 51 of the reasons for judgment the word "demands" should read "grounds" and the word "is" should appear after "Defamation Proceeding". I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.