Robson v Robson

Case [2010] QCA 330

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robson & Anor v Robson & Ors [2010] QCA 330

PARTIES:

CHARLES WILLIAM ROBSON
(first defendant/first appellant)
SANDRA LEIGH ROBSON
(second defendant/second appellant)
v
GARY FRANCIS ROBSON
(first plaintiff/first respondent)
HANNOVER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(second plaintiff/second respondent)
MINE & QUARRY EQUIPMENT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(third plaintiff/third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11759 of 2010
SC No 7342 of 2000
SC No 8937 of 2000
SC No 10177 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from interlocutory decision

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 November 2010

JUDGES:

Muir and Chesterman JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal be dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE –QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – STAYING PROCEEDINGS – primary judge dismissed appellants’ stay application – appellants submitted primary judge erred in failing to find respondents had not disclosed relevant documents – appellants submitted the absence of the documents would cause them prejudice and deprive them of a fair trial – whether primary judge erred in findings of fact – whether primary judge erred in dismissing stay application

PROCEDURE – COSTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – OTHER REASONS FOR SECURITY – primary judge dismissed appellants’ application to top-up security for costs previously ordered – appellants submitted primary judge’s reason for refusal, namely delay, was unjustified – appellants submitted circumstances had changed since security for costs awarded – appellants submitted current security for costs was modest for a 13 day trial – whether primary judge erred in dismissing application

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39, applied
Australian National Airlines Commission v The Commonwealth (1975) 132 CLR 582; [1975] HCA 33, cited
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Mango Boulevard P/L v Spencer & Ors[2008] QCA 274, applied
Robson & Ors v Robson [2010] QSC 378, related
Robson v Robson & Anor[2008] QCA 36, related
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42, cited
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538; [1990] HCA 55, cited
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77, cited

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris QC, with J W Peden, for the appellants
D de Jersey for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Russell and Company for the appellants
James Byrne & Rudz for the respondents

[1]      MUIR JA:  The appellant defendants appeal against an order of a judge of the trial division of this Court dismissing an application to stay proceeding BS 10177 of 2004 and an application for security for costs in that and related…

Continue reading Robson v Robson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Robson v Robson [2010] QCA 330
Case
[2010] QCA 330
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Robson v Robson, the appellants sought to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which dismissed their application for a stay of proceedings and their application to top-up security for costs previously ordered. The appellants argued that the primary judge erred in failing to find that the respondents had not disclosed relevant documents, which they claimed would cause them prejudice and deprive them of a fair trial. The appellants also submitted that the primary judge’s reason for refusing to top-up the security for costs, namely delay, was unjustified, and that circumstances had changed since the security for costs was awarded. The current security for costs, the appellants submitted, was modest for a 13 day trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in their findings of fact in dismissing the stay application and whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application to top-up security for costs. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties and found that the primary judge did not err in their findings of fact. The court also found that the primary judge did not err in dismissing the application to top-up security for costs, as the appellants had not demonstrated any significant change in circumstances or any other compelling reason to warrant an increase in the security for costs.

The court held that the primary judge did not err in dismissing the appellants’ application for a stay of proceedings and their application to top-up security for costs. The court found that the primary judge’s reasons for dismissing the applications were sound and that the appellants had not demonstrated any error on the part of the primary judge. The court further held that the current security for costs was reasonable and appropriate for a 13 day trial. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed with costs

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.