Murphy v Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd

In Murphy v Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd, the plaintiffs sought to secure costs in the form of a deed of indemnity from an English insurance company, supplemented by an actual payment of $30,000. The defendant, Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd, argued that this arrangement was inadequate and instead sought security by way of payment into court or a bank guarantee. The dispute came before the court for resolution of the appropriate form of security. Additionally, the defendant sought disclosure of draft expert reports, which the plaintiffs argued were not required to be disclosed until they were deployed.

The court was required to decide whether the proposed security by the plaintiffs was sufficient to protect the defendant and whether it potentially constituted a champertous funding arrangement, which is generally considered unacceptable. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the form of security proposed by the plaintiffs imposed an unacceptable disadvantage on the defendant. In relation to the disclosure of draft expert reports, the court needed to ascertain whether the draft reports must be disclosed under sub-rule 212(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and whether communications between experts and lawyers are privileged.

The court examined the statutory framework and determined that the draft expert reports must be disclosed as per the requirements of sub-rule 212(2) of the UCPR. The court found that the abrogation of privilege under this sub-rule should be confined to its ordinary meaning, meaning that draft expert reports must be disclosed. The court also ruled that the proposed security by the plaintiffs, involving the deed of indemnity and the actual payment, was inadequate and potentially part of a champertous funding arrangement. The court therefore required a different form of security, such as payment into court or a bank guarantee, to adequately protect the defendant.

The court ordered the parties to provide written submissions within two weeks to determine the appropriate form of orders.