Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd - [2018] QDC 198

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 198

PARTIES:

GORDAN JAMES CRAVEN (Plaintiff)

V

GLOBE VALLEY PTY LTD (First Defendant)

AND

PETER ROSS HEGARTY (Second Defendant)

AND

DEBORAH HEGARTY (Third Defendant)

AND

SEBASTIAN JAMES HEGARTY (Fourth Defendant)

AND

THOMAS ROSS HEGARTY (Fifth Defendant)

AND

SHELI BOWMAN (Sixth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

228/18

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2018 (delivered ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2018

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The proceedings against the first to third defendants be dismissed;

2.   The hearing of the application by the plaintiff filed 14 September 2018 be vacated;

3.   The plaintiff pay the first to third defendants’ costs of these proceedings, including reserved costs and the costs of the application filed 12 September 2018 on a standard basis;

4.   Order 3 be stayed until 26 October 2018;

5.   The application filed 12 September 2018, in respect of relief sought by the fourth and fifth defendants, be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where an order for security for costs for the first to third defendant has been made – where the plaintiff has not complied with this order – where the defendant applies for dismissal of proceedings against the first to fifth defendants – where the plaintiff applies for the strike out of the security for costs order – whether special circumstances exist – whether the proceedings should be dismissed.

Cases

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 35 ALR 625
Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 266
Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QDC 280
Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 155
Goodman v Lorenzen [2000] QCA 11
H & R Management v Bickford [2010] QSC 144
Neylon v Bluegrass Developments Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 2

Legislation

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 658, 668, 674, 675

COUNSEL

G Craven for the plaintiff (appearing in person)

N Ferrett for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants

No appearance for the sixth defendant

SOLICITORS:

Archibald & Brown Lawyers for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants

Introduction

This is an application by the defendants for the dismissal of the claims against them. The first to third defendants rely on rule 674(c) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) that permits the court to dismiss all or part of the proceedings when an order for security has been made and not complied with. That rule provides:
674 Stay or dismissal
If the court orders the plaintiff to give security for costs—
(a) the time set by these rules or by an order of the court for another party to take a step in…

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 Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 198
Case: [2018] QDC 198
Decision Date: 27 September 2018 (delivered ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd decision involved the plaintiff, Craven, who filed proceedings against Globe Valley and several other defendants. The crux of the dispute was the plaintiff's failure to comply with an order for security for costs made against the first to third defendants. Consequently, these defendants applied for the dismissal of the proceedings against them. In response, the plaintiff sought to strike out the security for costs order. The court was tasked with determining whether there were special circumstances justifying the dismissal of the proceedings and whether the proceedings should be terminated.

The legal issues before the court centred on the consequences of the plaintiff's non-compliance with the security for costs order and the criteria for dismissing proceedings under such circumstances. The court needed to assess whether the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order constituted a sufficient ground for dismissal and whether the plaintiff's application to strike out the order could be entertained under the given facts. Additionally, the court had to consider the costs implications for the parties involved.

In delivering its decision, the court held that the plaintiff's non-compliance with the security for costs order was a significant factor warranting the dismissal of the proceedings against the first to third defendants. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would excuse their non-compliance. Furthermore, the plaintiff's application to strike out the security for costs order was rejected as it was deemed an attempt to circumvent the consequences of their non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of the proceedings against the first to third defendants, with costs to be borne by the plaintiff. The application by the plaintiff to strike out the security for costs order was also dismissed. The hearing of the plaintiff's application filed on 14 September 2018 was vacated, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the application filed on 12 September 2018. The order regarding costs was stayed until 26 October 2018, and the application filed on 12 September 2018, concerning the fourth and fifth defendants, was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings against the first to third defendants be dismissed;

2. The hearing of the application by the plaintiff filed 14 September 2018 be vacated;

3. The plaintiff pay the first to third defendants’ costs of these proceedings, including reserved costs and the costs of the application filed 12 September 2018 on a standard basis;

4. Order 3 be stayed until 26 October 2018;

5. The application filed 12 September 2018, in respect of relief sought by the fourth and fifth defendants, be dismissed.

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:	Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 198
PARTIES:	GORDAN JAMES CRAVEN (Plaintiff) V GLOBE VALLEY PTY LTD (First Defendant) AND PETER ROSS HEGARTY (Second Defendant) AND DEBORAH HEGARTY (Third Defendant) AND SEBASTIAN JAMES HEGARTY (Fourth Defendant) AND THOMAS ROSS HEGARTY (Fifth Defendant) AND SHELI BOWMAN (Sixth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	228/18
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2018 (delivered ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 September 2018
JUDGE:	Porter QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The proceedings against the first to third defendants be dismissed; 2. The hearing of the application by the plaintiff filed 14 September 2018 be vacated; 3. The plaintiff pay the first to third defendants’ costs of these proceedings, including reserved costs and the costs of the application filed 12 September 2018 on a standard basis; 4. Order 3 be stayed until 26 October 2018; 5. The application filed 12 September 2018, in respect of relief sought by the fourth and fifth defendants, be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where an order for security for costs for the first to third defendant has been made – where the plaintiff has not complied with this order – where the defendant applies for dismissal of proceedings against the first to fifth defendants – where the plaintiff applies for the strike out of the security for costs order – whether special circumstances exist – whether the proceedings should be dismissed. Cases Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 35 ALR 625 Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 266 Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QDC 280 Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QDC 155 Goodman v Lorenzen [2000] QCA 11 H & R Management v Bickford [2010] QSC 144 Neylon v Bluegrass Developments Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 2 Legislation Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 658, 668, 674, 675
COUNSEL	G Craven for the plaintiff (appearing in person) N Ferrett for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants No appearance for the sixth defendant
SOLICITORS:	Archibald & Brown Lawyers for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants