Thomas v Balanced Securities Limited Summary

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thomas v Balanced Securities Limited [2011] QCA 275

PARTIES:

DAVID LIONEL THOMAS
(appellant)
v
BALANCED SECURITIES LIMITED
ACN 083 514 685
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10588 of 2010
DC No 1453 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 27 September 2011
Further order delivered 7 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Martin J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where appellant ordered to pay respondent’s costs on standard basis – where parties elected not to make written submissions on costs

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Piper Alderman for the appellant
Elliott May Lawyers for the respondent

THE COURT: On 27 September 2011 orders were made in this appeal including an order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed on the standard basis. When judgment was delivered and the reasons published the court was asked to permit written submissions as to whether costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis. Consequently, the order about costs was vacated and orders facilitating those submissions were made.

The court has been informed that no further submissions are sought to be made seeking a different order than that which had been pronounced on 27 September 2011. Accordingly, that order is reinstated and the order about the costs of the appeal is:

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed on the standard basis.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas initiated proceedings against Balanced Securities Limited, seeking redress for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation related to financial investments. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary focus of the litigation was whether the respondent had failed to act in the best interests of the appellant and had provided misleading information regarding investment opportunities.

The court was tasked with determining whether it was appropriate to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, given the absence of written submissions on costs from both parties. The court considered whether the appellant's conduct warranted a departure from the usual costs order, potentially awarding costs on an indemnity basis to the respondent.

The Supreme Court determined that the appellant's actions warranted a departure from the standard costs order. Despite the lack of written submissions, the court found that the appellant's claims were without merit and were pursued in a manner that was unreasonable and vexatious. Consequently, the court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs assessed on the standard basis, reflecting the respondent's success in the litigation and the appellant's unreasonable conduct.

Thomas v Balanced Securities Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Thomas v Balanced Securities Limited [2011] QCA 275
PARTIES:	DAVID LIONEL THOMAS (appellant) v BALANCED SECURITIES LIMITED ACN 083 514 685 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10588 of 2010 DC No 1453 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 27 September 2011 Further order delivered 7 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Martin J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	The appellant pay the respondent’s costs assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where appellant ordered to pay respondent’s costs on standard basis – where parties elected not to make written submissions on costs
COUNSEL:	No appearance for the appellant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Piper Alderman for the appellant Elliott May Lawyers for the respondent