COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 448
de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA
Appeal No 9337 of 1998
DENIS O'DONNELL and
JACQUELINE O'DONNELL First Appellant/First Defendant
and
ADMARK SYSTEMS PTY LTD Second Appellant/Second Defendant
and
ROBERT COLIN MASON and
DIANE VERONICA MASON Respondent/Plaintiff
BRISBANE
..DATE 20/11/98
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application for security for costs of the appeal brought by the respondents who succeeded at the trial in gaining a judgment for $245,000.
The judgment was given on 10 September 1998. The trial Judge ordered the appellants to release to the respondents monies in a bank account in part satisfaction of the judgment. Apparently after some delay those monies were paid over, but approximately $147,000 remains owing.
The appellants are natural persons residing in the United Kingdom, the corporate appellant has been deregistered. The appellants apparently own no real property within this jurisdiction. The notice of appeal and the affidavits filed for the appellants indicate that the appeal is confined to factual challenges.
In all these circumstances I consider this to be a case where the Court should exercise its discretion to order the provision of security for costs. The material establishes that $8500 is the appropriate figure.
I would order that the appellants pay to the Registrar as security for the respondents' costs of the appeal the sum of $8500 and that pending the payment of such amount further proceedings on the appeal be stayed and that costs of this application be costs in the appeal.
PINCUS JA: I agree.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
-----
- AGLC
- O'Donnell v Mason & Mason [1998] QCA 448
- Case
- [1998] QCA 448
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the appellants should provide security for the respondents' costs of the appeal. The material presented indicated that the appellants had the financial means to pay the security. The court found this to be a case where the exercise of discretion to order security for costs was appropriate, given the appellants' financial circumstances and the substantial judgment owed. The court determined that $8,500 was the appropriate figure for security.
The Court of Appeal, consisting of Jersey CJ, Pincus J, and Thomas JA, unanimously agreed on the matter. They ordered the appellants to pay $8,500 as security for the respondents' costs of the appeal. Pending payment, further proceedings on the appeal would be stayed, and the costs of the application would be costs in 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.