Leadenhall Australia Pty Ltd v Doman - [2019] SADC 93

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master's Decision)
LEADENHALL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v DOMAN
[2019] SADC 93
Judgment of His Honour Judge Dart
1 July 2019
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - POWERS OF COURT - COSTS
Freezing order made - non-party affected by the order - non-party applied to Court to vary the order - Court varied the order - non-party awarded costs of application - plaintiff appeals against the costs order - no error in the exercise of the discretion of the Master who made the costs order.
Held:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, certified fit for counsel.
Project Development Co Limited SA v KMK Securities & Ors [1983] 1 All ER 465, applied.
Adelaide (SA Pools & Spa) Manufacturing & Installation Pty Ltd & Ors v Westcourt General Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd [2016] SASC 60; Collex Waste Management Services Pty Ltd v City of Enfield (No 2) [2000] SASC 140; Norilya Minerals Pty Ltd v Ireland & Ors (1994) 12 WAR 485; Sunlight Nominees Pty Ltd v Zotti & Zotti [2017] SASC 176, considered.

LEADENHALL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v DOMAN
[2019] SADC 93
JUDGE DART:

The appellant (plaintiff) appeals against a costs order made by the Master of the Court on 20 February 2019. For the reasons that follow, the appeal should be dismissed.
Background
In these proceedings the plaintiff sued Peter Doman (the second defendant) and his son, Jason Doman (the third defendant). Judgment was entered against the defendants on 30 November 2018.
The plaintiff applied to the Court for a charging order in respect of particular property. It also sought and obtained a freezing order. Those orders were made by a Master on 12 December 2018.
The freezing order was served on the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (‘CBA’) and also BankSA. Upon receipt of the freezing order, each of those banks closed down the operation of all bank accounts in the name of the defendants. The freezing order in its terms permitted the defendants to access the sum of $500 per week for ordinary living expenses and permitted the payment of reasonable legal expenses.
The wife of the first defendant, Ms Doman, the mother of the second defendant, swore an affidavit on 19 December 2018. In that affidavit she deposed to the fact that she had a joint account with her husband with the CBA, together with a business account, the accounts had been frozen by the CBA and that she had been unable to undertake any online or other banking. The affidavit was in support of an application to have the CBA reinstate the accounts so that they could be operated.
The matter came on before a Master on 20 December 2018. He directed the solicitor for the plaintiff to write to the CBA that day and advise the bank that the freezing order did not extend to the joint bank…

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 Leadenhall Australia Pty Ltd v Doman 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: [2019] SADC 93
Decision Date: 1 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leadenhall Australia Pty Ltd v Doman, the primary dispute arose from a freezing order that was initially made by the Court of South Australia. The order impacted a non-party who subsequently applied to the Court for a variation of the order. The Court granted the application and awarded costs to the non-party for their application. The plaintiff, Leadenhall Australia Pty Ltd, appealed against the costs order, arguing that there was an error in the exercise of the Master's discretion. The appeal centred on the assessment of the costs awarded to the non-party following their successful application to vary the freezing order.

The legal issues before the court involved the discretion exercised by the Master in awarding costs to the non-party after their successful application to vary the freezing order. The central question was whether the Master had erred in exercising their discretion to award costs to the non-party, given the circumstances of the case. The appeal required the court to review the exercise of discretion and determine if there were any grounds to find an error that warranted overturning the costs order.

The court thoroughly examined the discretion exercised by the Master in awarding costs to the non-party. The court found that the Master's decision was based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors and was not shown to be in error. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs order made by the Master was upheld. The court concluded that the Master's exercise of discretion was within the bounds of what was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

No further orders were made by the court beyond affirming the costs order made by the Master. The court found no basis to disturb the decision and thus left the costs order as determined by the Master. This decision underscores the importance of the Master's discretion in such matters and highlights the limits of judicial intervention in such matters.

Orders