Legal Research
Cases
Crestland Investments Pty Ltd v Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd

Crestland Investments Pty Ltd v Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd

Case [2003] WASC 181 22 September 2003

Security for Costs

Interpleader Proceedings

Delay

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: CRESTLAND INVESTMENTS PTY LTD -v- PARISI HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ANOR [2003] WASC 181

CORAM: MASTER NEWNES

HEARD: 8 SEPTEMBER 2003

DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 1858 of 2002

BETWEEN: CRESTLAND INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
PARISI HOLDINGS PTY LTD
First Defendant
THE REVEREND BARRY JAMES HICKEY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PERTH
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Security for costs - Interpleader proceedings - Claim and defence to counterclaim from same factual matrix - Delay - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 25

Result:

Security for costs refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J C Giles
First Defendant             :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     Mr M W Fatharly

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Solomon Brothers
First Defendant             :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     Kott Gunning

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bryan E Fencott Pty Ltd & Associates v Eretta Pty Ltd (1987) 16 FCR 497
Buckley v Bennell (1974) 1 ACLR 301
Circaz Pty Ltd v Manolidis (2003) 45 ACSR 542
Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Dalma Formwork Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 16
Foss Export Agency Pty Ltd v Trotman (1949) 67 WN (NSW) 1
McLaughlin v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1904) 1 CLR 143
Rhodes v Dawson (1886) 16 QBD 548
Sarac v Croatian House Hrvatski Dom (Inc), unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950675; 12 December 1995
Spargos Mining NL v Fuller (2003) 21 ACLC 860
Sydmar Pty Ltd v Statewise Developments Pty Ltd (1987) 73 ALR 289

Case(s) also cited:

Bell Wholesale Co Ltd v Gates Export Corp (1984) 2 FCR 1
Brown v Haig (1905) 2 Ch 379
Brunza v Robbie & Co (No 2) (1952) 88 CLR 171
Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34
Crestland Pty Ltd v Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 148
Dalecoast Pty Ltd v Guardian International Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Master Sanderson); Library No 990168; 7 April 1999
JH Billington Ltd v Billington [1907] 2 KB 106
Kevorkian v Burney (No 2) [1937] 4 All ER 468
King v Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 289
KP Cable Investments Pty Ltd v Meltglow Pty Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 189
Melville v Craig Nowlan & Associates Pty Ltd (2002) 54 NSWLR 82
Memutu Pty Ltd v Lissenden (1983) 8 ACLR 364
Morris v Hanley [2001] NSWCA 374
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Ratcliffe v Ratcliffe [2003] WASC 79
Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1965] 1 WLR 8
Re City of Perth; ex parte Lord [2002] WASCA 254
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
Shannon v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [1994] 2 Qd R 563
Yandil Holding Pty Ltd v Insurance Co of North America (1985) 3 ACLC 542

MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by the second defendant ("the Archbishop") for an order for security for costs pursuant to O 25…

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 Crestland Investments Pty Ltd v Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Crestland Investments Pty Ltd v Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 181
Case: [2003] WASC 181
Decision Date: 22 SEPTEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Crestland Investments Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking security for costs in relation to an interpleader proceeding. Crestland claimed the sum of $80,000 as security for costs, asserting that the proceeding involved multiple parties and claims from the same factual matrix, potentially making the costs of the proceeding significant. Parisi opposed the application, arguing that the amount sought was excessive and that there had been an unreasonable delay in making the application.

The court was required to determine whether Crestland's application for security for costs was justified. The key issue was whether the proceeding involved multiple parties and claims from the same factual matrix, which could lead to significant costs, and if so, whether the amount sought by Crestland was reasonable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there had been an unreasonable delay in making the application, which could affect the outcome of the security for costs application.

The court found that the proceeding did indeed involve multiple parties and claims from the same factual matrix, which supported the need for security for costs. However, the court was not satisfied that the amount of $80,000 was reasonable, given the nature of the proceeding and the evidence presented. The court also noted that there had been an unreasonable delay in making the application, which further impacted the outcome. As a result, the court dismissed Crestland's application for security for costs.

The court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case, and the outcome reflected a careful consideration of the factors relevant to the application for security for costs. The court emphasised that each application for security for costs must be assessed on its own merits, and the amount sought must be reasonable in light of the circumstances of the case. The dismissal of the application did not affect the ongoing interpleader proceeding, which would continue as scheduled.

Orders