The Actors Workshop Pty Ltd v Harrison - [2014] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Actors Workshop Pty Ltd v Harrison [2014] QCA 92

PARTIES:

THE ACTORS WORKSHOP PTY LTD
(applicant)
v
GAVIN HARRISON
(respondent)

FILE NOS:

Appeal No 2369 of 2014
DC No 2020 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Security for Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2014

JUDGE:

Morrison JA

ORDERS:

Pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 the appellant provide security for the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and of any appeal associated with a grant of leave, in the sum of $11,600, in a form approved by the Registrar.1.

Such security be provided within 28 days of the date of this order.2.

Until the security is given a party to the appeal shall not take a further step in the proceedings without the leave of the Court of Appeal.3.

If the security is not given as required by paragraph 1 of this order, the appeal be stayed so far as it concerns steps to be taken by the appellant, unless the Court of Appeal otherwise orders.4.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis.5.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where the respondent in the appeal proper applies for security for costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – where in the primary court proceedings the appellant unsuccessfully sought damages from the respondent for personal injuries and other loss suffered whilst attending an acting course conducted by the respondent – where the appellant has not and is unable to pay the judgment debt order against him in the primary court proceedings – where the primary court judge made adverse findings as to the appellant’s credit – where the appellant is impecunious – where the appellant has had a trial on the merits – whether security for costs should be ordered

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 772

Banks & Anor v Copas Newnham Pty Ltd & Ors[2001] QCA 526, cited
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Eise (1991) 6 ACSR 1, cited
Harrison v The Actors Workshop Australia Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 40, related
Ivory v Telstra Corp Ltd & Anor[2001] QCA 490, cited
Mbuzi v Hall & Anor [2010] QSC 359, cited
Natcraft PtyLtd & Anor v Det Norske Veritas & Anor[2002] QCA 241, cited

COUNSEL:

R S Ashton for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Thynne & Macartney for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

MORRISON JA: This is an application pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, for an order that the appellant give…

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.

Continue reading The Actors Workshop Pty Ltd v Harrison

Details

AGLC: The Actors Workshop Pty Ltd v Harrison [2014] QCA 92
Case: [2014] QCA 92
Decision Date: 29 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Actors Workshop Pty Ltd, an acting school, appealed against a decision of the primary court, seeking to overturn a judgment entered in favour of Harrison, who had successfully sued the acting school for injuries he sustained while attending a course. The appeal centred on the issue of whether the appellant should be required to provide security for the costs of the appeal under rule 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The court had to determine whether the appellant was able to fund the costs of the appeal given his financial circumstances and whether the order for security for costs was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law regarding security for costs. It noted that the appellant had been unsuccessful in the primary court proceedings and had not paid the judgment debt. The court also found that the appellant was impecunious and unable to pay the costs of the appeal. The court held that the appellant should be required to provide security for the costs of the appeal, as the respondent was at risk of incurring significant costs if the appeal was unsuccessful. The court ordered that the appellant provide security for the costs of the application for leave to appeal and any appeal in the sum of $11,600, to be paid within 28 days. If the security was not provided within the specified time, the appeal would be stayed.

The court further ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court held that the appellant's financial circumstances and the risk to the respondent of incurring significant costs if the appeal was unsuccessful justified the order for security for costs. The court held that the appellant's inability to pay the costs of the appeal did not absolve him of the responsibility to provide security for costs. The court held that the order for security for costs was appropriate in the circumstances and in the interests of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 the appellant provide security for the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and of any appeal associated with a grant of leave, in the sum of $11,600, in a form approved by the Registrar.1.

Such security be provided within 28 days of the date of this order.2.

Until the security is given a party to the appeal shall not take a further step in the proceedings without the leave of the Court of Appeal.3.

If the security is not given as required by paragraph 1 of this order, the appeal be stayed so far as it concerns steps to be taken by the appellant, unless the Court of Appeal otherwise orders.4.

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis.5.

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.

CITATION:	The Actors Workshop Pty Ltd v Harrison [2014] QCA 92
PARTIES:	THE ACTORS WORKSHOP PTY LTD (applicant) v GAVIN HARRISON (respondent)
FILE NOS:	Appeal No 2369 of 2014 DC No 2020 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Security for Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 April 2014
JUDGE:	Morrison JA
ORDERS:	Pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 the appellant provide security for the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and of any appeal associated with a grant of leave, in the sum of $11,600, in a form approved by the Registrar.1. Such security be provided within 28 days of the date of this order.2. Until the security is given a party to the appeal shall not take a further step in the proceedings without the leave of the Court of Appeal.3. If the security is not given as required by paragraph 1 of this order, the appeal be stayed so far as it concerns steps to be taken by the appellant, unless the Court of Appeal otherwise orders.4. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the standard basis.5.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where the respondent in the appeal proper applies for security for costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself pursuant to r 772 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – where in the primary court proceedings the appellant unsuccessfully sought damages from the respondent for personal injuries and other loss suffered whilst attending an acting course conducted by the respondent – where the appellant has not and is unable to pay the judgment debt order against him in the primary court proceedings – where the primary court judge made adverse findings as to the appellant’s credit – where the appellant is impecunious – where the appellant has had a trial on the merits – whether security for costs should be ordered Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 772 Banks & Anor v Copas Newnham Pty Ltd & Ors[2001] QCA 526, cited Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Eise (1991) 6 ACSR 1, cited Harrison v The Actors Workshop Australia Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 40, related Ivory v Telstra Corp Ltd & Anor[2001] QCA 490, cited Mbuzi v Hall & Anor [2010] QSC 359, cited Natcraft PtyLtd & Anor v Det Norske Veritas & Anor[2002] QCA 241, cited
COUNSEL:	R S Ashton for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Thynne & Macartney for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf