Carrier v Bonham Summary

[2000] QCA 375

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA

No 7606 of 2000

KEITH DARREL CARRIER Respondent/Plaintiff

and

JOHN LLEWELLYN BONHAM Applicant/First Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/09/2000

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The applicant, John Bonham, is under the care of the Public Trustee and has been so for some years. Judgment was given against him in an action for damages for personal injuries in the some of $113,061 and costs. A bill has been prepared in which the costs are said to exceed $70,000.

The appeal raises grounds of substance. If the judgment is paid there is a serious chance that the appellant, if successful in the appeal, would not recover the moneys paid pursuant to the present judgment.

Mr Forde, for the respondent, has suggested that the moneys would be disbursed to the legal representatives and to various statutory boards and the balance be paid to his client. Even on that scenario there would, I think, be considerable difficulty and needless expense associated with repayment assuming that repayment could be effected. I remain of the impression that there is a serious chance that the appellant, if successful on the appeal, would not recover the moneys paid. There has been no intermediate suggestion of a small or limited amount being paid to tide over the plaintiff during the delay that the conduct of the appeal will produce.

Mr Forde also submitted that there is a risk that the applicant/defendant's house may have to be sold in any event, especially having regard to a costs order made in favour of the other defendant against which no appeal has been brought. That, however, is by no means certain but it would seem to be inevitable that his house would have to be sold if I do not grant a stay of execution of the plaintiff's judgment.

In this particular matter then I think that the balance between the relevant considerations favours the grant of the stay and I shall make an order to that effect pending determination of the appeal.

...

HIS HONOUR: Order as per paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application and order that the costs of today's proceedings be each party's costs in the appeal.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carrier v Bonham involved Keith Carrier, the plaintiff, and John Llewellyn Bonham, the defendant, who appealed against a judgment entered in favour of Carrier for damages and costs. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The main issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of execution on the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal. The court had to consider the risk that if the judgment was paid, Bonham might not recover the money if the appeal was successful. Additionally, the potential for Bonham's house to be sold due to a costs order made in favour of another defendant was considered.

The court's reasoning focused on the potential hardship to Bonham if the judgment was enforced while the appeal was being heard. The possibility that Bonham, who is under the care of a Public Trustee, would not be able to recover the paid money even if the appeal was successful, was a significant factor. The court also noted that there was no suggestion of a partial payment to assist Bonham during the appeal process. The risk that Bonham's house could be sold if the judgment was paid was also a relevant consideration. The balance of these factors led the court to conclude that a stay of execution would prevent unnecessary hardship and potential financial loss to Bonham.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal granted the stay of execution on the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by each party in the appeal.

Carrier v Bonham

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established