Hughes v Janrule Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application for security for costs made by Janrule Pty Ltd (respondent) against Mr Hughes (appellant) in relation to a prior judgment. Following the court's refusal of the application for security for costs, written submissions were invited from the parties regarding the costs of that application. The respondent lodged its submissions on time, but the appellant emailed unsigned and undated submissions to the associate of the judge without indicating they had been filed or served on the respondent. These submissions were later lodged. The court also considered the circumstances surrounding an adjourned hearing date for the security for costs application, where the appellant's counsel sought an adjournment on the morning of the hearing due to a medical appointment, with the request only being communicated to the respondent the day before.

The court was required to determine whether to make an order for the costs of the security for costs application, and specifically, whether the appellant should be permitted to charge his lawyers for responding to that application. Further, the court considered the propriety of emailing submissions to a judge's chambers without filing and serving them, and communicating with chambers without advising the other parties. The court also examined the reasonableness of the appellant's actions in seeking an adjournment on the day of the hearing without prior notice to the respondent.

Penfold J noted that the appellant's counsel had sought an adjournment on the morning of the hearing due to a medical appointment, which was only communicated to the respondent the day before. The judge found no sufficient explanation for the lack of earlier communication or for the appellant's decision to wait until the hearing day to seek an adjournment, especially as the hearing was unlikely to commence until the afternoon. Regarding the written submissions, the judge observed that the appellant's submissions were emailed to chambers without proper filing and service, and without advising the respondent. The judge considered the appellant responsible for his lawyers' approach to the application.

Ultimately, there was no order made in respect of the costs of the application between the appellant and the respondent.