Banicic v Beach & Ors - [2008] VSCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 3775 of 2007

MARIA BANICIC	Applicant
v
D F R BEACH and ORS	Respondents
(as Trustees of the Law Aid Trust)

APPLICATION ON SUMMONS

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH JA and COGHLAN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 February 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 February 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 35

---

Practice – Summons for final judgment – Leave to defend granted on condition defendant provide security for sum claimed – Whether first order dismissing application for summary judgment precluded imposition of a condition – Whether r 22.06(1)(b) and (c) mutually exclusive and alternate dispositions of application – Intent in making first order – Power of County Court judge to vary terms of order before order entered into the record – Whether cause of action sufficiently verified – Whether requirements of r 22.03(1) met – Whether sufficient basis disclosed to justify the imposition of condition of financial security - Onus upon defendant to demonstrate substantial injustice if condition imposed – Graywinter Properties v Rodway [1998] VSC 177, [12] (Warren J) approved.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr A W Sandbach	Lennon Mazzeo Lawyers
For the Respondents	Dr C L Pannam QC with	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Mr S M Rebikoff
REDLICH JA:

The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the order of Judge Holt of 4 December 2004, refusing the applicant unconditional leave to defend the proceedings and ordering that the applicant provide security for the amount claimed by the respondent as a condition of leave to defend. In the event that leave to appeal is granted, the applicant seeks a further order staying the order of Judge Anderson made on 31 January 2008, by which, the time was extended for the applicant to provide security as a condition of being at liberty to defend the proceedings, that time being extended to 4.00 pm on 7 February 2008, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to enter judgment in the sum of $130,668.87 plus interest. The applicant further seeks to have judgment in default of compliance with the condition imposed by Judge Anderson, entered on 11 February be set aside. Leave was granted to amend the applicant’s summons of 18 December 2007 to seek such additional relief.
On 10 October 2005, Law Aid and the applicant entered into an agreement that the respondent would provide assistance by way of payments to the applicant's solicitors to be used for the purpose of paying disbursements incurred in contemplation of, or in the conduct of litigation against a hospital in a medical negligence claim. The agreement stated that 5.5% of the quantum of any judgment in settlement of the litigation was to be paid to the respondent Law Aid. The defendant settled the litigation by accepting an Offer of Compromise of $2 million plus costs.
The respondents commenced proceedings against the applicant in the County Court by writ filed on 14 August 2007. The respondents claim to have provided $20,668.87 to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Banicic v Beach & Ors

Details

AGLC: Banicic v Beach [2008] VSCA 35
Case: [2008] VSCA 35
Decision Date: 27 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Banicic v Beach & Ors involved the plaintiff, Banicic, seeking final judgment against the defendants, Beach and others, in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the defendants' liability for unpaid debts and whether the court could impose conditions on the leave to defend granted to the defendants. The County Court judge had initially dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment and subsequently granted the defendants leave to defend on the condition that they provide financial security for the sum claimed. Banicic contested the imposition of this condition, arguing that it was inappropriate and unjust.

The court had to determine several legal issues, including whether the initial dismissal of the application for summary judgment precluded the imposition of a condition on the leave to defend. The court also had to consider whether the relevant rules, specifically r 22.06(1)(b) and (c), were mutually exclusive and whether the judge had the power to vary the terms of the order before it was entered into the record. Additionally, the court examined whether the cause of action was sufficiently verified, whether the requirements of r 22.03(1) were met, and whether there was a sufficient basis to justify the imposition of a condition of financial security. The court also assessed the onus on the defendants to demonstrate substantial injustice if the condition was imposed.

The court held that the initial order dismissing the application for summary judgment did not preclude the imposition of a condition on the leave to defend. The rules r 22.06(1)(b) and (c) were not mutually exclusive but rather could be applied concurrently. The judge had the power to vary the terms of the order before it was entered into the record. The court found that the cause of action was sufficiently verified, and the requirements of r 22.03(1) were met. The defendants had not demonstrated substantial injustice to warrant the relief from the condition of financial security. The court approved the decision in Graywinter Properties v Rodway, emphasising that the onus was on the defendants to show why the condition should not apply.

The final orders of the court confirmed the imposition of the condition of financial security on the leave to defend granted to the defendants. The defendants were required to provide the specified financial security for the sum claimed. The court's decision underscored the importance of meeting procedural requirements and the necessity for defendants to demonstrate substantial injustice to avoid the imposition of such conditions.

Orders