Davey v TriCare Ltd

[2003] QCA 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Davey v TriCare Ltd [2003] QCA 264
PARTIES:	JOE EMMA DAVEY (also known as Jem Amber Davey) (plaintiff/appellant/respondent) v TRICARE LTD ACN 009 657 345 (defendant/respondent/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10 of 2003 SC No 3126 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Security for Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	24 June 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 June 2003
JUDGES:	Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for security for costs dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - COSTS - SECURITY FOR COSTS - OTHER MATTERS - where respondent sued employer for damages for personal injury arising out of negligent system of work - where respondent appeals against inadequacy of damages assessed - where appeal has some prospects of success - where application for security for costs of appeal dismissed
COUNSEL:	R A I Myers for the appellant J G Crowley QC, with P B de Plater, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Shine Roche McGowan for the appellant McCullough Robertson for the respondent

DAVIES JA: This is an application for security for costs of an appeal by the respondent against a judgment in her favour in the sum of $23,186.

The respondent sued the applicant, her employer, for damages for personal injuries arising out of a negligent system of work. The appeal is, in effect, the inadequacy of the damages assessed by the learned trial judge.

The appeal is, in my opinion, by no means unarguable, and indeed it, in my opinion, has some prospects of success. The respondent, on the other hand, appears to be unable to pay the applicant's costs if she loses the appeal. The applicant already has an order for costs against her, which are approximately equal to the judgment in her favour.

The principles, with respect to security for costs, are not in doubt and it is unnecessary to state them here today.

Applying them to this case, in my opinion, the respondent's prospects of success outweigh the factors mentioned by Mr Myers, and favour an order for security for costs, and for that reason, I would dismiss the application.

WILLIAMS JA: I agree.

JERRARD JA: I agree.

DAVIES JA: The application is dismissed, with costs.

-----