Tindall v. Lee

The matter before the Supreme Court of Queensland was an application for security for costs brought by the defendants, David Eric Lee and Leslie Maree Lee, against the plaintiff, Mervin Peter Tindall. The dispute arose out of a claim initiated by Tindall in November 2002. The application for security for costs was made under Rule 671(c) of the Rules, which provides that the Court may order security for costs if satisfied that the address of the plaintiff is not stated or misstated in the original process unless there is reason to believe that this was done without intention to deceive. The court had to decide whether there was reason to believe that the misstatement of the plaintiff's address was done without intention to deceive.

The court examined the evidence presented by the plaintiff, including an affidavit from Mr Solomon, a solicitor with the firm acting for the plaintiff. Mr Solomon was unable to provide evidence of why the residential or business address of the plaintiff was not given in the claim and was unable to say what precisely Mr Baker may have obtained from Mr Tindall. Mr Solomon suggested that it seemed to have been a practice in the firm not to give appropriate addresses in claims but that hardly justifies the conclusion that the omission was without intention to deceive. The court found that there was insufficient solid evidence to conclude that the misstatement of the address was done without intention to deceive. The court also noted the plaintiff's failure to bring these proceedings in his own name and the dubious nature of the plaintiff's claim.

The court concluded that it was appropriate to make an order for security for costs given the circumstances of the case, the delays in the prosecution of the claim, and the fact that an order for security for costs would not be oppressive or likely to stifle the proceedings. The court ordered the plaintiff to give security for the defendants' costs of these proceedings up to and including the fourth day of trial in the sum of $82,200 by way of payment into Court within 28 days of the making of this order or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Registrar. The court also ordered that until such security be given, the proceedings be stayed and granted liberty to the defendants to apply in respect of security for costs in respect of proceedings beyond the fourth day of trial.