TONESPORTS PTY LTD -v- COMPULINE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 266

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 266
Case No:	CIV:1574/2000	Heard:	20 OCTOBER 2000
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	31/10/00
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Security ordered
PDF Version

Parties:	TONESPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 076 450 229) COMPULINE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 060 573 042) PAUL SYDNEY BARKER
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for security for costs Principle to be applied Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Corporations Law, s 1335
Case References:	Buckley v Bennell Design & Constructions Pty Ltd (1974) 1 ACLR 301 FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v Mining Australia Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 69 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd v State of Western Australia (1996) 22 ACSR 241 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1992) 10 ACLC 525 Hymix v Garritty (1997) 13 ALR 321 Newtrend Pty Ltd v Oceanic Life Ltd [1990] WAR 1 Warren Mitchell Pty Ltd v Australian Maritime Officers' Union (1993) 12 ACSR 1 Westralian Gold Mines Ltd v Westralian Minerals and Drilling Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1986) 4 ACLC 167 Zortex Australia Pty Ltd v Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia, unreported; FCt SCt of Western Australia; Library No 920609; 24 November 1992

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : TONESPORTS PTY LTD -v- COMPULINE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD & ANOR [2000] WASC 266 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 20 OCTOBER 2000 DELIVERED : 31 OCTOBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1574 of 2000 BETWEEN : TONESPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 076 450 229)

Plaintiff (By Original Action)

AND

COMPULINE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 060 573 042)

First Defendant (By Original Action)

PAUL SYDNEY BARKER

Second Defendant (By Original Action)

(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)

COMPULINE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 060 573 042)

Plaintiff (By Counterclaim)

AND

JAMES JOHN COWLING

SHAUN MICHAEL McCABE

Defendants (By Counterclaim)

(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for security for costs - Principle to be applied - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Law, s 1335

Result:

Security ordered

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff (By Original Action) : Mr G H Murphy

First Defendant (By Original Action) : Mr J R Johnson

Second Defendant (By Original Action) : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff (By Original Action) : Minter Ellison

First Defendant (By Original Action) : Ilbery Barblett

Second Defendant (By Original Action) : No appearance

Counterclaim

Counsel:

Plaintiff (By Counterclaim) : Mr J R Johnson

Defendants (By Counterclaim) : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff (By Counterclaim) : Ilbery Barblett

Defendants (By Counterclaim) : No appearance

(Page 3)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Buckley v Bennell Design & Constructions Pty Ltd (1974) 1 ACLR 301
FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v Mining Australia Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 69
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd v State of Western Australia (1996) 22 ACSR 241

Case(s) also cited:

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1992)

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tonesports Pty Ltd v Compuline Solutions Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WASC 266
Decision Date: 31 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tonesports Pty Ltd v Compuline Solutions Pty Ltd, the matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The dispute arose from a claim by Tonesports against Compuline for alleged breaches of contract and associated damages. The primary focus of the case was whether the court should order Compuline to provide security for Tonesports' costs in the event that Tonesports was unsuccessful in its claims.

The court needed to determine the appropriate principle to apply when deciding whether to grant an application for security for costs. This involved considering whether Compuline had the means to pay such costs if Tonesports were to lose the case, and whether such an order was necessary to ensure the just disposal of the proceedings. The court examined the balance of convenience and the merits of the case, along with the financial positions of both parties.

The Federal Circuit Court concluded that the application for security for costs should be granted. The court found that the principles established in previous cases indicated that the decision should be based on the specific facts of this case. It took into account the substantial amount of damages sought, the financial capacity of the defendant, and the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding in the action. The court was satisfied that an order for security was necessary to ensure that the proceedings could be pursued without undue financial risk to either party.

The final order of the court was that Compuline Solutions Pty Ltd was required to provide security for Tonesports Pty Ltd's costs, in the event that Tonesports was unsuccessful in its claims. This decision was made in the interest of ensuring the fair and just resolution of the dispute between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Security ordered

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.