Box Information Technology Pty Ltd v Crystalaid Manufacture Pty Ltd

[2012] QDC 106

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3066 of 2011

BOX INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD

Plaintiff

and

CRYSTALAID MANUFACTURE PTY LTD

and

SAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Defendant

Third Party

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/04/2012

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Commercial list - placing of proceedings on commercial list not allowed to delay determination of an application for security for costs
HIS HONOUR: This proceeding is appropriate to go on the commercial list. It's necessary only to mention the claim by the plaintiff for additional remuneration based on the defendant allegedly taking access to licensed software provided by the plaintiff for staff numbers well in excess of the limited number the plaintiff says the licence permitted.

Mr Hutchinson has a very full “commercial list statement” which the Supreme Court's practice direction incorporated by reference in this Court's counterpart requires indicate that the proceeding is much more complex than that. The statement is extremely forthcoming in explaining the application for listing as a reaction to the defendant's application for security for costs. It reports that if not the plaintiff, then the individual behind it, may be in financial circumstances that are less than comfortable.

I am not expressing any view as to whether the application deserves any support because it appears to be a reaction to the security for costs application which surely has to be dealt with on its own merits. The matter deserves to be on the commercial list anyway. The defendant and third party are amenable to it going on the list, the defendant on the basis that this will not delay the hearing of its application for security for costs which is listed before the applications Judge next Monday.

I sought to prevail on the parties involved in that application who are the plaintiff and the defendant to use Court time which appears to be available today to deal with it now but Mr Hutchinson has to prepare submissions and Mr Bowden, for the defendant/applicant, is here in Court without the authorities that he would need.

I agreed with Mr Bowden's approach that the listing of the matter on the commercial list should not be allowed to delay any aspect of the proceeding, in particular the application listed for next Monday. It would be entirely contrary to the whole notion of the commercial list for a listing to impede the progress of the proceeding to determination.

The applications Judges next week are not commercial list Judges. I've undertaken to deal with that application myself at some convenient time on the day for which it's been listed.

Mr Bradley, for the third party, confirms that it is not involved in the security for costs application and that he would be grateful if his attendance were not required.

In those circumstances it's been thought convenient to make certain directions for the progress of the matter today. Those can be reviewed at any time. Review would certainly be necessary should security that might be ordered lead to the proceeding being stayed. Order as per initialled draft.

...

----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Box Information Technology Pty Ltd brought an action against Crystalaid Manufacture Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought to recover debts allegedly owed by the defendant. The dispute centred around the defendant's request to transfer the case to the commercial list of the court, which was made after the plaintiff had already lodged an application for security for costs. The plaintiff objected to the transfer on the grounds that it would delay the determination of the security for costs application.

The legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's application to transfer the proceedings to the commercial list could be granted when there was an existing application for security for costs that had yet to be determined. The court had to consider the appropriate balance between the need for a prompt resolution of the security for costs application and the defendant's right to have the case heard in the most suitable list for its complexity and nature.

The court held that the defendant's attempt to place the proceedings on the commercial list was an attempt to delay the determination of the plaintiff's application for security for costs. The judge noted that the security for costs application was an urgent matter that needed to be resolved promptly to ensure that the plaintiff could continue to pursue the action without financial prejudice. The court rejected the defendant's application to transfer the case to the commercial list, emphasising the importance of not allowing procedural tactics to impede the timely resolution of critical preliminary matters. The security for costs application remained to be decided by the primary judge.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established