Rickleman & Anor v. Rickleman & Ors

[2002] QSC 372

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[2002] QSC 372
File No S372 of 2002

BETWEEN:

ELIZABETH JANE RICKLEMAN

First Applicant

AND:

GEOFFREY JAMES BIRD

Second Applicant

AND:

ROBERT FRANK HARPUR RICKLEMAN

First Respondent

AND:

MARGOT ELIZABETH RICKLEMAN

Second Respondent

AND:

JAMES VINCENT COCKERILL, ADULT GUARDIAN

Third Respondent

AND:

PUBLIC TRUSTEE

Fourth Respondent

MOYNIHAN J – REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2002

HEARING DATE/S:

12 September 2002

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

Order:

1. That pursuant to Rule 772 of the UCPR the Second Applicant gives security in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for the prosecution without delay and for any costs of the Court of Appeal may award to the First and Second Respondents in the Second Applicant’s Appeal No 5108 of 2002.

2. That pursuant to Rule 772 of the UCPR the Second Applicant gives security in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for the prosecution without delay and for any costs of the Court of Appeal may award to the Third Respondent in the Second Applicant’s Appeal No 5108 of 2002.

3.   Until such security is given the appeal is stayed.

4. That Pursuant to Rule 95 of the UCPR the Third Respondent or his delegate be appointed Litigation Guardian for the First Applicant, Ms Elizabeth Rickleman for the purposes of the First Applicant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal No 5108 of 2002 and for the purposes of Mr Geoffrey Bird’s application number S372 of 2002.

5.   That the Second Applicant pay the First, Second and Third Respondent’s costs of and incidental to this application to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

Litigation Guardian – where Adult Guardian seeks to be appointed as Litigation Guardian pursuant to UCPR 95 for purpose of an appeal of an earlier decision – consideration of when a Litigation Guardian may be appointed – whether Litigation Guardian should be appointed in this case – whether it should be the Adult Guardian or the Applicant Mr Bird.

COSTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where respondent seeks security for costs from the applicant – considerations relevant to an application for security for costs

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules s93(1), 95

Pratt v Dickson (2000) QSC 314; considered

Natcraft Pty Ltd & Anor v Det Norske Veritas & Anor; applied

COUNSEL:

Mr G. Bird (in person) for the applicants

Ms M Cassidy for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Applicant self represented

Crowley & Greenhalgh for the Respondents

1. The following is a sufficient but incomplete account of the proceedings with which I am concerned.  These applications are bought in an action instituted by Elizabeth Jane Rickleman and Geoffrey James Bird against Rickleman’s mother and father together with the Adult Guardian and the Public Trustee.  The relationship between Bird and Elizabeth Rickleman has led to a number of applications in various courts.  The Adult Guardian was appointed guardian in respect of Elizabeth Rickleman and the Public Trustee who has been appointed administrator of her estate.  The originating application sought to suspend the decision of the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal and appoint…