Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Goo v Kim [2022] FCA 1562 Appeal from: Kim v Goo [2022] FedCFamC2G 602
File number(s): NSD 743 of 2022
Judgment of: HALLEY J
Date of judgment: 22 December 2022
Catchwords: COSTS – interlocutory application for security for costs of an appeal – s 56 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 36.09 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether order for security for costs would stifle appeal – whether appeal raises a substantive point of law – whether in public interest that issue be determined – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 56 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.09
Cases cited: Allison v Murphy [2021] FCA 1551 Beames v Rigby [2002] FCA 1095 Bell Wholesale Co Ltd v Gates Export Corporation (1984) 2 FCR 1 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd [2012] FCA 992 McCardle v Lyons [2019] FCA 1554 Mead v Mead [2010] FCA 288 Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 509 Nyoni v Pharmacy Board of Australia [2018] FCA 1313 Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 90
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 29
Date of hearing: 12 December 2022
Counsel for the Appellant: G McDonald
Solicitor for the Appellant: Rays Lawyers
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