[2003] QCA 66
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
No 8386 of 2002
| GRANT REID TRUSTEE FOR THE | Respondent/Plaintiff |
| COVERDALE SUPER FUND | |
| and | |
| PETER JENSEN | Appellant/Defendant |
| BRISBANE ..DATE 21/02/2003 | |
| ORDER 21022003 T7/JAP22 M/T COA23/2003 |
1
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the security for costs ordered to be
| paid by the appellant by the District Court, Southport on the 11th November 2002 is paid within three weeks of today's date this appeal is to be struck out with costs to be assessed for want of prosecution. | 10 |
| I order the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to today's hearing to be assessed. |
----- 20 30 40 50
ORDER
2 60
Details
- AGLC
- Jensen v Grant Reid Trustee for the Coverdale Super Fund [2003] QCA 66
- Case
- [2003] QCA 66
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jensen v Grant Reid Trustee for the Coverdale Super Fund involved a dispute between Peter Jensen, the appellant, and Grant Reid, trustee for the Coverdale Super Fund, the respondent. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. Jensen, the appellant, had been involved in a legal matter with the respondent, which had resulted in the District Court ordering Jensen to pay security for costs. Jensen appealed this decision to the Queensland Court of Appeal.
The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the District Court's order for Jensen to pay security for costs was appropriate. Jensen argued that the order was excessive and not justified by the circumstances of the case. The court had to consider the principles governing security for costs, the nature of the case, and whether the order was reasonable and proportionate to the costs that might be incurred.
The Queensland Court of Appeal found that the District Court had not erred in ordering Jensen to pay security for costs. The court upheld the order, stating that it was reasonable and necessary to protect the respondent from potentially significant costs if the appeal was unsuccessful. The court also considered the nature of the case and the financial circumstances of Jensen, and concluded that the order was proportionate and justified. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Jensen was required to pay the costs of the appeal.
The final orders of the court were that unless Jensen paid the security for costs within three weeks from the date of the judgment, the appeal would be struck out. Jensen was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the District Court's order for Jensen to pay security for costs was appropriate. Jensen argued that the order was excessive and not justified by the circumstances of the case. The court had to consider the principles governing security for costs, the nature of the case, and whether the order was reasonable and proportionate to the costs that might be incurred.
The Queensland Court of Appeal found that the District Court had not erred in ordering Jensen to pay security for costs. The court upheld the order, stating that it was reasonable and necessary to protect the respondent from potentially significant costs if the appeal was unsuccessful. The court also considered the nature of the case and the financial circumstances of Jensen, and concluded that the order was proportionate and justified. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Jensen was required to pay the costs of the appeal.
The final orders of the court were that unless Jensen paid the security for costs within three weeks from the date of the judgment, the appeal would be struck out. Jensen was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.