Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2004] FCA 1334
•15 OCTOBER 2004
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1334
[2004] FCA 1334
15 OCTOBER 2004
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd involved Karen Carey-Hazell, who had undergone heart surgery that resulted in the implantation of a mechanical valve. Post-surgery, she experienced various complications, including blood clots and strokes, leading her to seek damages against Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd, the distributor of the valve, and two medical professionals involved in her surgery. The primary issues before the court were whether Ms Carey-Hazell was required to provide security for costs of the appeal, and if so, the appropriate amount.
The court considered the relevant factors for granting security for costs, including the strength of the appeal, the applicant's financial situation, and the potential oppression of the respondent if security was not required. The court noted that while appeals generally do not require security for costs, exceptions could be made if the appeal lacked merit or if the potential costs to the respondent were significant. The decision highlighted that an appeal signifies the appellant has already had their day in court and the initial ruling may be presumed correct. The court observed that a significant proportion of appeals succeed, but the discretion to require security for costs remains when the appeal lacks substantial merit or the issues are not of significant importance to the appellant.
The court ultimately decided that Ms Carey-Hazell must provide security for the costs of the appeal. It ordered her to furnish bank guarantees totalling $150,000, which would be held until the appeal was resolved. The appeal was to be stayed until the security was provided. Ms Carey-Hazell was also granted the liberty to apply to reduce the amount of security if the grounds of appeal were narrowed, thereby reducing the anticipated costs and duration of the appeal. The respondents were permitted to apply for further security if necessary, and Ms Carey-Hazell was required to pay the costs of the motion filed by the respondents.
The court considered the relevant factors for granting security for costs, including the strength of the appeal, the applicant's financial situation, and the potential oppression of the respondent if security was not required. The court noted that while appeals generally do not require security for costs, exceptions could be made if the appeal lacked merit or if the potential costs to the respondent were significant. The decision highlighted that an appeal signifies the appellant has already had their day in court and the initial ruling may be presumed correct. The court observed that a significant proportion of appeals succeed, but the discretion to require security for costs remains when the appeal lacks substantial merit or the issues are not of significant importance to the appellant.
The court ultimately decided that Ms Carey-Hazell must provide security for the costs of the appeal. It ordered her to furnish bank guarantees totalling $150,000, which would be held until the appeal was resolved. The appeal was to be stayed until the security was provided. Ms Carey-Hazell was also granted the liberty to apply to reduce the amount of security if the grounds of appeal were narrowed, thereby reducing the anticipated costs and duration of the appeal. The respondents were permitted to apply for further security if necessary, and Ms Carey-Hazell was required to pay the costs of the motion filed by the respondents.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Trafford Nominees Pty Ltd v Everstone Group Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 282
Cases Citing This Decision
56
DRE Capital Pty Ltd v Wixels Property Holdings Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWSC 874
Fire Containment Pty Limited ACN 109 155 044 v Peter Robins
[2011] NSWSC 444
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd
[2004] FCA 853
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey
[1970] HCA 60
Porter v Gordian Runoff Ltd
[2004] NSWCA 171