Denblaze Pty Ltd v Relebank Pty Ltd & Norfolk Estates Pty Ltd Summary

[1996] QCA 202

COURT OF APPEAL

FITZGERALD P
McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS J

Appeal No 3437 of 1996

DENBLAZE PTY LTD
ACN 058 345 752 Applicant (Plaintiff)

and

RELBANK PTY LTD Respondent (First Defendant)

and

NORFOLK ESTATES PTY LTD Respondent (Second Defendant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 28/05/96

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: In this matter the Court has had the advantage of reading the parties written outlines which have not been supplemented by oral submissions in the Court.

In my opinion it is unnecessary to give detailed reasons for the disposal of this application for leave to appeal under subsection 92.2 of the District Court Act. In my opinion the test laid down by that section is not satisfied and the application should be refused.

McPHERSON JA: Yes, I agree. The case is one in which the defendant and respondent to the application for security succeeded in establishing, to the satisfaction of the Judge below, that what has been called the threshold question, was to be decided in favour of the defendant. By "threshold question" I mean the impecuniosity of the plaintiff. That left it for him to consider whether there were other factors which should lead him to order security for costs which, in this case, he did.

The suggestion is that he failed to consider the other matters which he ought to have considered leading to that exercise of his discretion. In fact, however, he specifically mentioned one of them, that is to say, that the plaintiff did not suggest that a default had occurred as to the result of the defendant's breach of contract in payments to third parties.

He did not go on to mention specifically any of the others but added simply that in the exercise of his discretion it seemed to him to be appropriate that security be given. Such a contracted form of reasoning may not seem wholly satisfactory to the parties; but it does not disclose any defect in logic or reason and due allowance should be made for the fact that it is often the case in the course of a busy Chamber day that the Judge does not descend to great particularity in his explanations of the decision which he is giving.

It seems to me to be clear that no defect is revealed of a kind which would lead us to give leave to prosecute this appeal in this Court when it is an order of an interlocutory kind effecting the matter of practice or procedure. I agree with the order proposed by the President.

WILLIAMS J: I agree with the reasons given by each of the other members of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: And I should add that I endorse the remarks made by Mr Justice McPherson in elaboration of the course which the Court proposes to take.

...

THE PRESIDENT: The application is dismissed with costs to be taxed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved an application by Denblaze Pty Ltd for leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court, which had refused their request for security for costs. The respondents to the appeal were Relebank Pty Ltd and Norfolk Estates Pty Ltd. The Court of Appeal found that the District Court's decision to refuse leave to appeal was correct, primarily because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the District Court had erred in its application of the law or made a mistake of fact.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court had properly exercised its discretion in denying Denblaze Pty Ltd's application for security for costs. The District Court had already considered the applicant's impecuniosity and decided in favor of the respondents on this threshold question. Additionally, the District Court had considered other factors and concluded that it was appropriate to order security for costs, although the reasoning provided was brief. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if the District Court's decision was flawed in a way that warranted an appeal.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Fitzgerald P, McPherson JA, and Williams J, held that the District Court had not erred in its decision. The Court found that the District Court had appropriately considered the impecuniosity of the applicant and other relevant factors in deciding whether to order security for costs. The brevity of the District Court's reasoning did not indicate any defect in logic or reason, especially considering the busy nature of court proceedings. The Court of Appeal emphasised that it is often not necessary for judges to provide extensive detail in their explanations of decisions, particularly in interlocutory matters. The Court concluded that the District Court's decision did not reveal any defect that would justify granting leave to appeal. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Denblaze Pty Ltd v Relebank Pty Ltd & Norfolk Estates Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established