Di Carlo v Dubois

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

Di Carlo v Dubois & Ors [2003] QCA 415

PARTIES: 

SALVATORE DI CARLO
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS
(first defendant/applicant)
PHILIP DUBOIS (MEDICAL) PTY LIMITED
ACN 010 673 864
(second defendant/applicant)
DENNIS RICHARD OSBORNE, PHILIP JAMES
DUBOIS, STEPHEN BENNETT KELLER, PIYOOSH
KOTECHA, GARY EDWARD O’ROURKE, MARK
JAMES READY, PETER STOREY, CHARLES BRUCE
LEIBOWITZ, PETER CHARLES LUSH, MICHAEL
DAUNT, DAVID ALEXANDER NOBLE and PETER
FERGUS LEIGH trading as QUEENSLAND X-RAY
SERVICES
(third defendants/applicants)
MATER PRIVATE HOSPITAL
(fourth defendant)
MICHAEL CORONEOS
(fifth defendant)

FILE NO/S: 

Appeal No 9805 of 2001
SC No 1281 of 1996

DIVISION: 

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: 

Application for Stay of Execution

ORIGINATING 
COURT: 

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX 

18 September 2003

TEMPORE ON: 

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

18 September 2003

JUDGES: 

Jerrard JA
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS: 

1.	The application dated 16 September 2003 for a stay of enforcement by the plaintiff of the costs order in his favour made by this Court on 25 June 2002 be adjourned to a further hearing before myself to a date to be fixed
2.	Until further order of this Court on that application, the plaintiff be and remain stayed from enforcing that order
3.	Costs of this application be reserved to the adjourned hearing

CATCHWORDS: 

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where costs order made in respondent’s favour following an interlocutory appeal – where respondent agreed to applicants’ offer to settle the costs order based on the term that it would be paid within 21 days of the agreement – where respondent now seeks to enforce that order following unanswered requests for payment – where applicants contend that respondent will be unable to meet his liability for costs ordered against him – where applicants contend that costs ordered against the respondent far exceed the costs awarded in his favour – where costs ordered against respondent are yet to be assessed – whether enforcement of costs order should be stayed pending assessment

Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd & Anor [2002] QCA
347; Appeal No 7316 of 2002, 6 September 2002, referred to

COUNSEL: 

R V Hanson QC, with P Feely, for the applicants
N M Cooke QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS: 

Flower and Hart for the applicants
Baker and Johnson for the respondent

[1]  JERRARD JA: This matter is a hearing of an application by parties - whom I will call the defendants for the stay - for an order for a stay of the execution of a costs order in favour of a party - whom I shall call the plaintiff.

[2]  The applicants were the defendants and respectively the first, second and third defendants in action number S1281 of 1996 in which they were sued by the plaintiff.

[3]  The trial of that action when first heard was adjourned after the fourth day and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants'…