Green v Scottney-Turbill & Anor - [2024] QCA 5

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Green v Scottney-Turbill & Anor [2024] QCA 5

PARTIES:

RON GREEN
(respondent/appellant)
v
ANDREW SCOTTNEY-TURBILL
(first applicant/respondent)
ROBIN SCOTTNEY-TURBILL
(second applicant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5786 of 2023
Appeal No 5787 of 2023
SC No 968 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 14 April 2023 (Cooper J)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

30 January 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2024

JUDGE:

Mullins P

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant must pay the respondents’ cost of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where appeals stayed until appellant complied with order for security for costs – where the appellant failed to pay the security – where the respondents applied for appeals to be dismissed pursuant to r 774(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the appellant did not provide evidence of efforts to address the fundamental problems with the claim that was the subject of the appeals – whether discretion should be exercised to dismiss appeals

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 774

Green v Scottney-Turbill [2022] QSC 65, related
Green v Scottney-Turbill[2023] QCA 141, related

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
S R Grant for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Aylward Game Solicitors for the respondents

MULLINS P: Mr Green has two appeals, 5786 of 2023 and 5787 of 2023, that are presently stayed. On 20 June 2023 I ordered that Mr Green give security for costs for the appeals in the sum of $15,000 within 28 days by payment into Court in appeal 5786 of 2023 of the said sum, or in such other form as the Registrar of the Court permits. The appeals were stayed insofar as steps to be taken by Mr Green until the security had been given or further order. Those orders were made in the absence of Mr Green. He then filed an application for the application for security to be re-heard on the basis of affidavits affirmed by him on 21 June 2023 and 22 June 2023.

That application was heard by Bond JA, on 14 July 2023, who concluded that Mr Green demonstrated no basis either to vary or set aside the security that had been ordered in respect of the appeals and the appellant’s application was dismissed with costs: Green v Scottney-Turbill [2023] QCA 141.

When the security was not provided the respondents then applied in each appeal pursuant to rule 774(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for the appeal to be dismissed and for Mr Green to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeals. That application was returnable on 12 December 2023. Although Mr Green was served with the application before the hearing, it was not in sufficient time for him to obtain the assistance of LawRight which had previously given him…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Green v Scottney-Turbill & Anor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QCA 5
Decision Date: 30 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Green v Scottney-Turbill & Anor, the Court of Appeal was called upon to address the issue of whether the appellant's appeals should be dismissed due to their failure to comply with an order for security of costs. The appellant, Green, had appealed against a decision of the primary judge, but had not satisfied the requirement to provide security for the respondents' costs. As a result, the respondents, Scottney-Turbill and another, applied for the appeals to be dismissed.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the discretion under rule 774(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) should be exercised in favour of dismissing the appeals. The Court had to consider whether Green's failure to provide security for costs, and their lack of evidence of efforts to remedy the fundamental issues with the claim, warranted the dismissal of the appeals. The Court was required to weigh the interests of justice against the procedural rules that govern security for costs.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeals should be dismissed. The Court found that Green had not demonstrated any reasonable prospect of success in the appeals, nor had they shown any evidence of efforts to address the fundamental problems with the claim. The Court considered the fundamental issue to be the appellant's repeated failures to comply with procedural requirements, which undermined the integrity of the judicial process. The Court concluded that in the interests of justice, the appeals should be dismissed and that the appellant must pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant must pay the respondents’ cost of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Green v Scottney-Turbill & Anor [2024] QCA 5
PARTIES:	RON GREEN (respondent/appellant) v ANDREW SCOTTNEY-TURBILL (first applicant/respondent) ROBIN SCOTTNEY-TURBILL (second applicant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5786 of 2023 Appeal No 5787 of 2023 SC No 968 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 14 April 2023 (Cooper J)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	30 January 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 January 2024
JUDGE:	Mullins P
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Appellant must pay the respondents’ cost of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where appeals stayed until appellant complied with order for security for costs – where the appellant failed to pay the security – where the respondents applied for appeals to be dismissed pursuant to r 774(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the appellant did not provide evidence of efforts to address the fundamental problems with the claim that was the subject of the appeals – whether discretion should be exercised to dismiss appeals Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 774 Green v Scottney-Turbill [2022] QSC 65, related Green v Scottney-Turbill[2023] QCA 141, related
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf S R Grant for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Aylward Game Solicitors for the respondents