Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Shaanxi Nutracare Australia Pty Ltd v Viplus Dairy Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1015 File number(s): VID 122 of 2021
Judgment of: O'CALLAGHAN J
Date of judgment: 26 August 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for security for costs – where application for security delayed – where applicant for security did not provide any adequate explanation for delay – insufficient evidence of relevant prejudice to party resisting application – insufficient evidence of the assets of those standing behind the party resisting security – security for costs ordered
Legislation: Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A Federal Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 19.01
Cases cited: Attorney-General of Botswana v Aussie Diamond Products Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 299 Australian Equity Investors, An Arizona Limited Partnership v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 5) [2011] FCA 1041 Axent Holdings Pty Ltd v Compusign Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 1102 Bechara v Bates [2021] FCAFC 34; (2021) 388 ALR 414 Bell Wholesale Co Ltd v Gates Export Corporation (1984) 2 FCR 1 Dagenham Nominees Pty Ltd v Shanks (2011) 110 SASR 577 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 Mecrus Pty Ltd v Industrial Energy Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 103; (2015) 327 ALR 523 Rosenfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bain & Co (1988) 14 ACLR 467
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
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