Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Rahman v Kent (No 2) [2025] FCA 129 File number: NSD 1280 of 2019
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 25 February 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where successful appellant seeks review of a decision by the Registrar to dismiss his application for the release of $25,000 paid into court as security for costs of an appeal – whether that security ought to be released where the appellant was awarded costs on the substantive appeal but was subject to an adverse costs order in the prior interlocutory application for security for costs – whether the security for "the costs of the appeal" included the costs of the interlocutory application – whether the funds in court are reasonably required to secure the costs on the interlocutory application – likely set-off and extinguishment of competing costs awards – piffling sums at stake – funds released
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 35A(5), 37M, 37N Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 2.42, 3.11(2)
Cases cited: Bechara v Bates [2021] FCAFC 34; 286 FCR 166 Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29; 269 CLR 333 Bou-Simon v Attorney-General (Cth) [2003] FCA 1303; 133 FCR 230 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Widdup (No 2) [2023] FCA 377 Rahman v Kent [2022] FCA 485
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 30
Date of hearing: 25 February 2025
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