Davey v TriCare Ltd

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.

-----

Davey initiated legal proceedings against TriCare Ltd, his former employer, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained due to a negligent system of work. The respondent, now an appellant, appeals against the inadequacy of the damages assessed by the court. The appeal was brought before the court, which had to determine whether the appellant was entitled to security for the costs of the appeal. The court's decision focused on whether the appeal had reasonable prospects of success and whether the appellant could provide adequate security for the costs of the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal had some prospects of success, but it did not warrant the grant of security for costs. The application for security for costs of appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application. This decision underscores the importance of carefully considering the merits of an appeal and the financial implications of pursuing such legal actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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