Brooks v Worchild - [2006] QCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brooks v Worchild [2006] QCA 93

PARTIES:

RAYMOND SYDNEY BROOKS
(applicant)
v
ANDREW WORCHILD
(respondent)

FILE NO:

CA No 120 of 2006
DC No 400 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Security of Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

31 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fryberg and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

1) That the applicant, Andrew Worchild, give security by payment into Court of the amount of $10,000.00 or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for the prosecution of his application for leave to appeal and for payment of any costs this Court may award to the respondent to that application on or before 14 April 2006.

2) If such security is not provided by 4.00 p.m. on 14 April 2006, the application for leave to appeal is struck out with costs to be assessed without further order of the Court.

3) That the respondent, Andrew Worchild, pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PARCTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where respondent is appealing dismissal of summary judgment application made by him in the Magistrates Court – where respondent is impecunious – where applicant has already incurred significant expense in defending the application – whether security for costs should be granted

COUNSEL:

C J R Wiltshire for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Jones King Lawyers for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

DOUGLAS J: This is an application for security for costs brought by Mr Brooks, the respondent to the appeal brought by Mr Worchild. Mr Brooks seeks security in the amount of $10,000.00.

The appeal instituted by Mr Worchild is from a decision of the District Court which itself was exercising its appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decision of the Magistrates Court made on 8 July 2005.

The action in the Magistrates Court is between Mr Brooks as a landlord and Mr Worchild as his tenant in respect of a fire in the unit Mr Worchild was renting from the defendant, Mr Brooks. The fire is alleged to have started at the kitchen hotplate at the unit. The action is defended by Mr Worchild partly on the basis of a denial of negligence or breach of contract by him, and also by an assertion in the counterclaim that Mr Brooks was in breach of contract and a statutory duty by not providing fire extinguishers to the unit and to the building.

The decision in the Magistrates Court was to refuse an application for summary judgment by Mr Worchild, the defendant to the claim in that Court, on the basis that there should be a trial of the action. The Magistrate was of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brooks v Worchild and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QCA 93
Decision Date: 31 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Andrew Worchild against the dismissal of his summary judgment application in the Magistrates Court. The application was brought by the respondent, Brooks, who was seeking damages for defamation and breach of privacy. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether, given that Mr. Worchild was impecunious and the applicant had already incurred significant costs in defending the application, security for costs should be granted to the applicant. This security would require Mr. Worchild to provide a financial guarantee before proceeding with his appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered the criteria for granting security for costs, which included the applicant’s financial circumstances, the amount of costs already incurred by the respondent, and the prospects of success of the appeal. Given Mr. Worchild's financial situation and the significant costs already incurred by Brooks, the Court found that it was appropriate to require security for costs to protect Brooks from undue financial burden. The Court also noted that the prospects of success of the appeal were not compelling enough to warrant an exception to the usual requirement for security.

In light of the above considerations, the Court ordered that Mr. Worchild must provide security for costs of $10,000.00 or to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. This sum was intended to cover the costs of the appeal and any potential costs the Court might award to Brooks if the appeal was unsuccessful. The Court further ordered that if Mr. Worchild failed to provide the required security by 4.00 p.m. on 14 April 2006, his application for leave to appeal would be struck out, and he would be liable to pay Brooks' costs of the application. Finally, the Court ordered Mr. Worchild to pay Brooks' costs of and incidental to this application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1) That the applicant, Andrew Worchild, give security by payment into Court of the amount of $10,000.00 or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for the prosecution of his application for leave to appeal and for payment of any costs this Court may award to the respondent to that application on or before 14 April 2006.

2) If such security is not provided by 4.00 p.m. on 14 April 2006, the application for leave to appeal is struck out with costs to be assessed without further order of the Court.

3) That the respondent, Andrew Worchild, pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Brooks v Worchild [2006] QCA 93
PARTIES:	RAYMOND SYDNEY BROOKS (applicant) v ANDREW WORCHILD (respondent)
FILE NO:	CA No 120 of 2006 DC No 400 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Security of Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	31 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 March 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fryberg and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	1) That the applicant, Andrew Worchild, give security by payment into Court of the amount of $10,000.00 or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for the prosecution of his application for leave to appeal and for payment of any costs this Court may award to the respondent to that application on or before 14 April 2006. 2) If such security is not provided by 4.00 p.m. on 14 April 2006, the application for leave to appeal is struck out with costs to be assessed without further order of the Court. 3) That the respondent, Andrew Worchild, pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PARCTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where respondent is appealing dismissal of summary judgment application made by him in the Magistrates Court – where respondent is impecunious – where applicant has already incurred significant expense in defending the application – whether security for costs should be granted
COUNSEL:	C J R Wiltshire for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Jones King Lawyers for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf