O'Donnell v Mason & Mason

Case [1998] QCA 448


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.

-----

Details
AGLC
O'Donnell v Mason & Mason [1998] QCA 448
Case
[1998] QCA 448
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Denis O'Donnell, Jacqueline O'Donnell, and Admark Systems Pty Ltd appeal against a judgment of $245,000 awarded to Robert Colin Mason and Diane Veronica Mason. The trial judge ordered the appellants to release funds from a bank account to partially satisfy the judgment, but approximately $147,000 remains unpaid. The respondents applied for security for costs of the appeal, considering the appellants' financial situation and the substantial amount owed. The appellants, residing in the United Kingdom and owning no real property in Australia, only challenge factual issues on appeal.

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.