Spargos Mining Nl v Fuller
[2003] WASC 37 (S)
•13 MARCH 2003
SPARGOS MINING NL -v- FULLER & ORS [2003] WASC 37 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASC 37 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:1417/1992 | 26 FEBRUARY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 13/03/03 | |
| 28/05/03 | |||
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Security ordered Amount clarified | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SPARGOS MINING NL MICHAEL JOHN FULLER CECIL DENNISTON BURNEY PETER GEOFFREY JERMYN |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Clarification of decision on application for security for costs Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
DECISION : 28 MAY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1417 of 1992
- CIV 2857 of 1991
CIV 2863 of 1991
CIV 2876 of 1991
- Plaintiff
AND
MICHAEL JOHN FULLER
First Defendant
CECIL DENNISTON BURNEY
Second Defendant
PETER GEOFFREY JERMYN
Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Clarification of decision on application for security for costs - Turns on own facts
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Security ordered
Amount clarified
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr A T Mizen
First Defendant : No appearance
Second Defendant : No appearance
Third Defendant : Mr C L Zelestis QC
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Mizen & Mizen
First Defendant : No appearance
Second Defendant : No appearance
Third Defendant : Minter Ellison
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MASTER SANDERSON: On 13 March 2003 I published reasons and ordered the plaintiff provide security for the third defendant's costs. The solicitors for the third defendant drew to my attention an apparent inconsistency in the reasons. It is to be noted that there are four actions in this matter which are to be heard together. The third defendant applied for security for costs in each of the actions. In relation to action CIV 1417 of 1992, the security sought was in an amount of $280,525 together with a daily amount of $8606. I referred to these two amounts in par 4 of my reasons. Reading that paragraph it may appear as though the amounts mentioned were the total security sought by the third defendant. In fact, that was not the case. In respect of all four actions the amount of security sought was $634,685 plus a daily amount. It was entirely correct and proper for counsel for the third defendant to draw this to my attention and I acknowledge par 4 of the reasons contained an error.
2 While par 4 did contain that error, I had not overlooked the fact that there were four actions in reaching the conclusion that an amount of $150,000 was appropriate by way of security for costs. As I indicated in my reasons, there is a substantial discrepancy between the parties as to how long this trial will run. On the plaintiff's estimate, it will run for 15 days and when the matter is listed it will be listed for 15 days. In my view, in those circumstances security in an amount of $150,000 is sufficient. I left open the possibility that if the matter was not concluded in the time allotted, further security might be ordered by the trial Judge. That remains the position. It was always my intention to order a global amount for security covering all four actions which are to be heard together. That global amount I set at $150,000.
2