Worchild v Brooks

[2006] QCA 120

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Worchild v Brooks [2006] QCA 120
PARTIES:	WORCHILD, Andrew (applicant) v BROOKS, Raymond Sydney (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 120 of 2006 DC No 400 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX
TEMPORE ON:	20 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 April 2006
JUDGES:	McPherson JA and Chesterman and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SECURITY FOR COSTS – where security for costs of an application for leave to appeal ordered – where the applicant failed to provide security - application for leave to appeal struck out – where applicant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal
COUNSEL:	No appearance by or on behalf of applicant C Wiltshire for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance by or on behalf of applicant Jones King Lawyers for the respondent

MULLINS J: The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the learned District Court judge given in December 2005 refusing the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the orders made by the magistrate on 8 July 2005.

On 31 March 2006 the Court of Appeal ordered that the struck out.

applicant, Mr Worchild, give security by payment into Court
in the amount of $10,000 or otherwise to the satisfaction of
the Court of Appeal Registrar on or before 14 April 2006.
It was also ordered that if security was not provided by 14

Security has not been provided. The effect of the Court of Appeal's order made on 31 March 2006 is that the application for leave to appeal has been struck out. The respondent therefore seeks an order for costs of the application.

As the application has been struck out because of the applicant's failure to provide security for costs it is appropriate to order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application to be assessed.

McPHERSON JA: Yes, I agree with that.

CHESTERMAN J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The order is that the appeal having been struck out in terms of the order of the Court of Appeal made on 31st March 2006, this Court now orders that the respondent have his costs of and incidental to the application that was made in preparation for that order of the 31st of March 2006. By that I mean the costs of the application for leave to appeal, not the costs of the application for security.

...