ROMEO -v- WESLEY COLLEGE [2015] WASCA 52

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 52
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:146/2014	Heard:	5 MARCH 2015
Coram:	NEWNES JA	Delivered:	17/03/15
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appellant to provide security for costs of $12,000 by 3 April 2015 Appeal dismissed if security is not provided
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	VINCENT JIM ROMEO KAREN LEE ROMEO WESLEY COLLEGE
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Security for costs of appeal Relevant principles Security ordered Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Brundza v Robbie & Co [No 2] [1952] HCA 49; (1952) 88 CLR 171 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Eise (1991) 6 ACSR 1 Mann v Dabelstein [2006] WASCA 176 Natcraft Pty Ltd v Det Norske Veritas [2002] QCA 241 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ROMEO -v- WESLEY COLLEGE [2015] WASCA 52 CORAM : NEWNES JA HEARD : 5 MARCH 2015 DELIVERED : 17 MARCH 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 146 of 2014 BETWEEN : VINCENT JIM ROMEO

First Appellant

KAREN LEE ROMEO

Second Appellant

AND

WESLEY COLLEGE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : WAGER DCJ

Citation : ROMEO -v- WESLEY COLLEGE [2014] WADC 152

File No : APP 41 of 2014

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Security for costs of appeal - Relevant principles - Security ordered - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appellant to provide security for costs of $12,000 by 3 April 2015

Appeal dismissed if security is not provided

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant : No appearance

Second Appellant : No appearance

Respondent : Mr A J Prentice

Solicitors:

First Appellant : No appearance

Second Appellant : No appearance

Respondent : Mossensons

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Brundza v Robbie & Co [No 2] [1952] HCA 49; (1952) 88 CLR 171
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Eise (1991) 6 ACSR 1
Mann v Dabelstein [2006] WASCA 176
Natcraft Pty Ltd v Det Norske Veritas [2002] QCA 241
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72

1 NEWNES JA: On 5 March 2015, I ordered the appellants to provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal in the sum of $12,000 on or before 3 April 2015, by payment of that sum into court unless the parties can agree on arrangements for it to be paid into an interest bearing account, and that in default of payment the appeal be dismissed.

2 I said I would provide reasons for my decision in due course. The following are the reasons.

Background

3 The respondent brought proceedings in the Magistrates Court against the appellants claiming outstanding school fees. The appellants defended the claim, contending that there had been a total failure of consideration as the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Romeo v Wesley College and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] WASCA 52
Decision Date: 17 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Romeo v Wesley College involved the appellant, Romeo, contesting an order made by the respondent, Wesley College, requiring the appellant to provide security for the costs of an appeal. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant should be compelled to provide security for the costs of the appeal, and if so, the appropriate amount. This decision was based on the principles governing security for costs in appellate proceedings.

The court considered several factors in determining the appropriate amount of security. These included the merits of the appeal, the prospects of success, the ability of the respondent to pay the costs if successful, and the appellant's ability to pay the security. The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties and assessed the likelihood of the appeal being successful. The court found that the appellant had a reasonable prospect of success on the appeal, but the respondent's ability to pay the costs if unsuccessful was limited. The court also considered the appellant's financial situation and determined that they had the means to provide the security.

The court ordered that the appellant provide security for the costs of appeal in the amount of $12,000 by a specified date. The court reasoned that this amount was sufficient to cover the potential costs that the respondent might incur if the appeal was unsuccessful. The court emphasised that the decision to order security and the amount was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The court dismissed the appeal if the security was not provided by the stipulated date.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appellant to provide security for costs of $12,000 by 3 April 2015

Appeal dismissed if security is not provided

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.