Twining v Curtis

Case

[2014] ACTCA 19

17 June 2014


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Twining v Curtis [2014] ACTCA 19 [2014] ACTCA 19 17 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Twining v Curtis*, the appellant, Anthony Albert Twining, sought to appeal a decision, while the respondent, Jacqueline Anne Curtis, applied for security for costs of the appeal. The appeal concerned allegations of injurious falsehood made in the context of employment, specifically whether the statements were false, malicious, and caused actual damage. The application for security for costs was heard by Refshauge J of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the respondent's application for security for costs of the appeal. This involved considering the distinction between security for costs at trial and on appeal, the factors relevant to such an application, and whether the appellant's impecuniosity, and any contribution by the respondent to that impecuniosity, were relevant. The court also had to assess the prospects of success of the appeal itself.

Refshauge J reasoned that a single judge of the Court of Appeal has the power to hear and determine applications for security for costs. The judge noted that delay in filing an application for security for costs does not necessarily preclude its success. The court considered the appellant's impecuniosity and whether the respondent had contributed to it. Crucially, the court found that the appeal had little, if any, prospects of success. Applying these considerations, the court allowed the application for security for costs.

Consequently, Anthony Albert Twining was ordered to provide security in the amount of $25,000 for the costs of Jacqueline Anne Curtis of the appeal. This security was to be lodged with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory within twenty-eight days. The appeal was stayed pending the provision of security, and if the security was not provided within the specified timeframe, the appeal would be deemed dismissed, with the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the security for costs application.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure

  • Negligence & Tort

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Costs

  • Stay of Proceedings

  • Damages

  • Duty of Care

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

15

Hurst-Meyers v Hoy (No 2) [2022] ACTCA 38
Cases Cited

21

Statutory Material Cited

2