Legal Research
Cases
Joye v Rehuxo

Joye v Rehuxo

Case [1999] NSWSC 1064 20 October 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Joye v Rehuxo [1999] NSWSC 1064

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 4118/97

HEARING DATE(S): 13 August 1999, 2 September 1999, 19 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 October 1999

PARTIES :

Judith Olga Joye and Christopher Ronald Edward Joye (P)
Rehuxo Pty Limited (D1)
David Bradley (D2)
Susan Bradley (D3)
Bowyang Nominees Pty Ltd (D4)
ANZ Executors & Trustee Company Limited (D5)
Peter Millar Bray, Martin Francis Fenaughty, John Wildred Cary t/as Bray & Associates (D6)
Susan Bradley and David Bradley (CC)
Judith Olga Joye and Christopher ronald Edward Joye (CD1)
Ian Edward Joye (CD2)
Robert Eric Horsell (CD3)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : I Jackman with J Stoljar (P & CD2)
N Hutley SC (D2 & D3)

SOLICITORS: Speed & Stracey (P, CD2 & CD3)
Coudert Brothers (D2 & D3))

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - costs - security for costs - plaintiffs assert that defendants/cross-claimants have made claims which are without substance and their conduct of the litigation has been vexatious - whether the Court has jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs on plaintiffs' application - relevant considerations as to costs when application is withdrawn

ACTS CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 23

CASES CITED: Buckley v Canal Design & Constructions Pty Limited (1974) 1 ACLR 301
Equity Access Limited v Westpac Banking Corporation [1989] ATPR 40-972
Fieldrank Ltd v E Stein [1961] 1 WLR 1287
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Limited v The International Produce Merchants Pty Limited (1988) 81 ALR 379
Ionian Bank v Couvreur [1969] 1 WLR 781
Joye v Rehuxo Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 785
Lloyd's Banking Company v Ogle (1876) 1 Ex D 262
Miller v Suffield 249 F 2d 17 (1957)
Rajski v Computer Manufacture and Design Pty Limited [1982] 2 NSWLR 443
Re Travel Lodge Australia Ltd (1978) 21 ACTR 17
Shackles v BHP Ltd [1996] 2 VR 427
Southern Cross Exploration v Fire and All Risks Insurance Co (1985) 1 NSWLR 114
Telstra Corporation Ltd v First Netcom Pty Limited, Federal Court, unreported, 7 May 1998, Einfield J
Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co [1969] 1 QB 607
Weger v Boola Boola Petroleum and Natural Gas Co NL [1923] VLR 570
Willey v Synan (1935) 54 CLR 175

DECISION: Application denied with costs

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

WEDNESDAY 20 OCTOBER 1999

4118/97 - JUDITH OLGA JOYE & 1 OR v REHUXO PTY LIMITED & 7 ORS

JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

1 HIS HONOUR: This judgment is directed to the costs of an application filed on 24 December 1998 seeking an order for security for costs, and subsequently withdrawn. The application was in proceedings brought by Judith and Chistopher Joye as plaintiffs against, inter alios, David and Susan Bradley as defendants. By a cross-claim filed on 26 November 1997, the Bradleys sought relief against the plaintiffs and also Ian Edward Joye and Robert Eric Horsell. I shall refer to the plaintiffs and Ian Edward Joye as ‘the Joyes’. The…

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.

Continue reading Joye v Rehuxo

Details

AGLC: Joye v Rehuxo [1999] NSWSC 1064
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1064
Decision Date: 20 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Joye, the plaintiff, against Rehuxo, the defendant and cross-claimant. The dispute originated from allegations of vexatious litigation and claims without substance made by the plaintiff against the defendant. The court was tasked with determining whether it had the authority to order security for costs from the defendant based on the plaintiff's application, and what considerations were pertinent to the costs when such an application was withdrawn.

The legal issues centred around the jurisdiction of the court to grant an order for security for costs under the circumstances presented. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the plaintiff's claims that the defendant's litigation conduct was vexatious and the claims themselves were without substance were sufficient grounds to justify such an order. Additionally, the court needed to outline the relevant considerations that should be taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of security for costs.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously analysed the relevant legislative provisions and case law to ascertain its jurisdiction. The court concluded that it did have the authority to order security for costs if it was satisfied that the plaintiff's allegations had merit and that the defendant's litigation conduct warranted such an order. The court also identified the key factors to be considered, including the nature of the claims, the conduct of the parties, and the potential for the litigation to be oppressive or vexatious. Ultimately, the court found that the application for security for costs was withdrawn by the plaintiff, leading to the consideration of the implications of such withdrawal on the assessment of costs.

The court's final orders did not include a specific ruling on the security for costs as the application had been withdrawn. However, it did provide detailed guidance on the relevant considerations that would apply had the application proceeded, thus ensuring clarity for future cases involving similar issues.

Orders