Spargos Mining Nl v Fuller

[2003] WASC 37 (S)

SPARGOS MINING NL -v- FULLER & ORS [2003] WASC 37 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 37 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1417/1992	Heard:	26 FEBRUARY 2003
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	13/03/03
Supplementary Delivered:	28/05/03
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Security ordered Amount clarified
Category:	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

CITATION : SPARGOS MINING NL -v- FULLER & ORS [2003] WASC 37 (S) CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 26 FEBRUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 13 MARCH 2003 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 28 MAY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1417 of 1992

CIV 2857 of 1991
CIV 2863 of 1991
CIV 2876 of 1991

BETWEEN : SPARGOS MINING NL

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.