1 HEYDON JA: On 3 April 1998 the appellant was allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident. He sued the respondent for approximately $2,000,000 in damages.
2 On 15 February 2002, after a long trial, Herron DCJ found a verdict and judgment for the respondent, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.
3 The appellant has filed as of right a Notice of Appeal. The appeal is fixed for hearing on 11 November 2002.
4 The respondent made an application for an order for security for the costs of the appeal. This application was heard by Handley JA. By reason of Part 51 rule 16(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, an order for security for the costs of an appeal can only be made “in special circumstances”. Handley JA found that an action brought by the appellant against Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd was settled for $900,000 inclusive of costs. A tax invoice tendered before this Court reveals that after the solicitors for the appellant had deducted various refunds and various amounts payable to them for costs and disbursements, about $300,000 was paid to the appellant. The appellant contends that much, though not all, of that sum was also spent on litigation-related expenses.
5 In his reasons for judgment dated 15 July 2002, Handley JA described the respondent as “the claimant”; he described the appellant as “Mr Patrick”; and his references to the submissions of Mrs Patrick stemmed from the fact that she was given leave by Handley JA to speak on the appellant’s behalf.
6 Handley JA said:
“On 20 September 2001, the plaintiff, perhaps as a trustee, perhaps beneficially, it is not clear, purchased an investment unit at Southport and paid $100,000 for the property. This property was transferred to Mrs Patrick’s sister on 4 March 2002 for $99,000.
The evidence before me includes a claim that only $45,000 of this amount was the property of Mr Patrick, the rest belonging to other beneficiaries under a trust. It is possible that this investment property was purchased with funds from the settlement of Mr Patrick’s action against Mirvac Projects, at least in part.
Mr and Mrs Patrick purchased…
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 Patrick v Howorth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Patrick v Howorth [2002] NSWCA 285
Case
[2002] NSWCA 285
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Patrick v Howorth*, the Court of Appeal considered an application for security for costs. The dispute arose from an appeal concerning the adequacy of security for costs ordered by a primary judge.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the amount of security for costs to be provided by the appellant. Specifically, the court had to determine if the primary judge had correctly applied the principles governing the exercise of discretion in ordering security for costs, particularly in the context of an appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the principles governing security for costs, emphasising that it is an exceptional remedy and that the court must balance the interests of the applicant seeking security against the risk of stifling a legitimate appeal. The court reviewed the evidence before the primary judge and concluded that the primary judge had not erred in principle or in fact in determining the amount of security. The court found that the primary judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's financial position and the merits of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.