WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd - [2024] WADC 108

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WA GLASS PTY LTD -v- AUTO CONTROL SYSTEMS PTY LTD [2024] WADC 108
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   5 DECEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   13 DECEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 614 of 2024
BETWEEN:   WA GLASS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
AUTO CONTROL SYSTEMS PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Security for costs - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr D H Solomon
Defendant	:	Mr J P Cook

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Solomon Brothers
Defendant	:	Mendelawitz Morton Commercial Lawyers

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

Arvind Pty Ltd v Lamers [2020] WASCA 47
Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd v WA Glass Pty Ltd [2024] WASC 160
Braziron Corporate Services Pty Ltd v Road Rail and Mine Products Pty Ltd [2022] WASC 73
Colmax Glass Pty Ltd v Polytrade Pty Ltd [2013] VSC 311
Donald Campbell‑Smith as executor of Martin Banning v Graeme Trevor Lean (in his capacity as Receiver) [2017] WASCA 89
FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v Mining Australia Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 69; (2000) 22 WAR 241
G & R Rossen Pty Ltd v Buchanan [2019] WASC 373
George 218 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2016] WASCA 56
Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd v Zhang [2007] HCA 15; (2007) 229 CLR 498
Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125
Livingspring Pty Ltd v Kliger Partners (2008) 20 VR 377; (2008) 66 ACSR 455
Modern Holdings Pty Ltd v Scentre Management Ltd [2022] WASC 19
Ogbonna v Programmed Integrated Workforce Ltd [No 2] [2022] WASCA 79
Phoenix Eagle Company Pty Ltd v Tom McArthur Pty Ltd [No 2] [2019] WASC 378
Pravenkav Group Pty Ltd v Diploma Construction (WA) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 106
Sugarloaf Hill Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Richard and Anna Trust v Rewards Projects Ltd [2011] WASC 19
Swansdale Pty Ltd v Whitcrest Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 129
Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398
Vicon Services Pty Ltd v BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 109
Vynben Pty Ltd v PA Audit Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 219
WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd [2021] WASC 187
WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 162
WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd [2023] HCASL 160
WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd [No 2] [2023] WASCA 85
WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd [No 3] [2023] WASCA 153
WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd [No 4] [2023] WASCA 154
Westonia Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 57
Zaghloul v Bayly [2023] WASCA 64

GETHING DCJ:

Introduction

Between approximately December 2019 and November 2020 WA Glass Pty Ltd (WAG), the…

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 WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems 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: [2024] WADC 108
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd originated from a claim brought by the plaintiff, WA Glass, against the defendant, Auto Control Systems, for damages and other relief in relation to alleged breaches of contract and tortious conduct. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the issues raised in the proceedings.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for security for costs, and if so, what the appropriate amount of that security should be. The court was required to balance the rights of the plaintiff to seek redress for alleged breaches of contract and tortious conduct against the potential financial burden on the defendant in defending such claims.

The court considered the relevant principles of law concerning security for costs and the factors that should be taken into account in determining whether such an order should be made. In doing so, the court noted that the determination of whether to grant security for costs and the amount of that security is a matter that turns on the particular facts of each case. The court found that, in this instance, the plaintiff had demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success in its claims, and that the financial position of the defendant was such that an order for security for costs was warranted. The court then proceeded to determine the appropriate amount of security, taking into account the relevant factors, and made an order accordingly.

The final orders of the court included an order for the defendant to provide security for the plaintiff's costs in the amount of $100,000, together with directions for the service of the order and the payment of the security within a specified timeframe. The court also made orders concerning the service of further documents and the progression of the case, as well as costs orders in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders