Thompson v Robinson

Case [2005] QCA 253

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thompson v Robinson [2005] QCA 253

PARTIES:

COLIN JAMES THOMPSON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 30 of 2005
DC No 3122 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Security for Costs
Miscellaneous Application - Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 July 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 July 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Applications dismissed
2.    Applicant to pay respondent's costs on the standard       basis

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - COSTS - SECURITY FOR COSTS - OTHER MATTERS - where security for costs of an appeal had been ordered - application made for variation of security for costs order - where applicant had failed to satisfy the security for costs order - where applicant claimed to be impecunious - where applicant claimed to have been expecting to receive a sum of money that was not paid - where applicant asserted that the prospects of success on the appeal were "very good" - whether the discretion to vary the security for costs order should be exercised

PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT - STAYING PROCEEDINGS - where payment of monies owing under a judgment was stayed pending the hearing of an appeal within six months - where appeal was not heard within the time limit - where prospective appellant made application for a variation of the original stay order - whether application was competent - whether the discretion to vary the stay order should be exercised - whether the appeal should be dismissed

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 761(2), r 772(4)

Coleman v Greenland (No 2) [2004] QCA 180; Appeal No 2619 of 2004, 28 May 2004, applied

Coleman v Greenland (No 3) [2004] QCA 236; Appeal No 2619 of 2004, 14 July 2004, distinguished

COUNSEL:

D C Spence for the applicant
M J Liddy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Clewett Corser & Drummond (Toowoomba) for the applicant
Georgeson & Company for the respondent

  1. de JERSEY CJ:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA.  I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour and with his reasons.

  1. WILLIAMS JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA and there is nothing I wish to add thereto.  I agree with all that is said therein, and with the orders proposed.

  1. KEANE JA: The applicant is the appellant in other proceedings before this Court in which he seeks to challenge a judgment entered against him consequent upon the verdict of a jury in favour of the respondent in the respondent's action against the appellant for damages for defamation. On 6 April 2005, the learned primary judge ordered that the applicant provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal in the…

Continue reading Thompson v Robinson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thompson v Robinson [2005] QCA 253
Case
[2005] QCA 253
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v Robinson involved an application for variation of security for costs order in an appeal process. The applicant, Thompson, had previously been ordered to provide security for costs of an appeal but had failed to satisfy this order. Thompson claimed to be impecunious and argued that the prospects of success on the appeal were very good. The court was required to decide whether the discretion to vary the security for costs order should be exercised. Additionally, the case involved an application for variation of a stay order concerning the payment of monies owing under a judgment. The stay order was made pending the hearing of an appeal within six months, but the appeal was not heard within the time limit. The court had to determine whether the application for variation of the stay order was competent and whether the discretion to vary the stay order should be exercised.

The court considered the relevant rules under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and the precedent set in Coleman v Greenland. In Coleman v Greenland (No 2), the court held that the discretion to vary a security for costs order should not be exercised unless there were special circumstances. The court in Thompson v Robinson found that Thompson had not demonstrated any special circumstances to warrant a variation of the security for costs order. Furthermore, the court held that the application for variation of the stay order was not competent as the appeal was not heard within the specified time limit. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion not to vary either the security for costs order or the stay order.

The court dismissed both applications made by Thompson. As a result, Thompson was ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis. This outcome reflects the court's adherence to the principles established in Coleman v Greenland and the specific provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the need for applicants to demonstrate special circumstances to justify a variation of security for costs or stay orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Applications dismissed

2. Applicant to pay respondent's costs on the standard basis

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.