Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

QCAT Client Services Manager v Reihana

 

[2017] QCA 101

 

COURT OF APPEAL

 

MORRISON JA

 

Appeal No 11178 of 2016

SC No 6260 of 2016

 

QCAT CLIENT SERVICES MANAGER Not a Party to the Application/First Respondent

QCAT OPERATIONAL MANAGER Not a Party to the Application/Second Respondent

BEENLEIGH SHOW SOCIETY Applicant/Third Respondent

v

TONI COLIN REIHANA Respondent/Appellant

 

BRISBANE

 

WEDNESDAY, 24 MAY 2017

 

JUDGMENT

 

MORRISON JA:  In this matter, an application is brought for security for costs in respect of an appeal which is set down tomorrow.  The application was filed on 15 May 2017.  The order it seeks is that security in the sum of $20,000 be provided within 14 days.  Clearly, that cannot happen within the timeframe of the appeal being heard.  Significantly, for present purposes, the delay in bringing this application is a serious factor against the grant of relief.  From as early November 2016, it was apparent to the applicant that there were good grounds to suspect that Mr Reihana would not be able to pay costs if ordered to do so.  In that respect, steps were taken to issue a bankruptcy notice which was ultimately set aside on 4 January 2017.

The appeal date, at least, was finalised on 9 March and the parties informed of that at that time.  The application for security was not filed until 15 May at a time when the appeal date was well known and at a time when the period for the provision of security could not be met.  Ms Laylee, appearing on behalf of the applicant, makes the point that one needs to balance the need for security against the prospects of success which she contends, in this case, are very poor in that Mr Reihana has behaved in a vexatious matter.  That may be right, but that does not overcome, in my respectful opinion, the delay, in this case, in bringing this application and the need for the appeal to proceed tomorrow.

Ms Laylee also raises that the applicant, the Beenleigh Show Society, is a contradictor of necessity because the first and second respondents will normally abide the order of the Court.  She also points out that the Beenleigh Show Society is not a party which itself has an abundance of funds.  Those things may also be correct and no doubt are.  However, they balance against two considerations:  one is that the application was brought knowing the appeal was to be heard tomorrow and in a way in which the security could not be provided before the appeal was heard unless that appeal was adjourned; that is an unpalatable prospect which this Court should not countenance unless absolutely necessary.

Secondly, the appeal is set for tomorrow and there is no reason why it should not proceed.  In the event that it is successful, Mr Reihana, being a self-represented person, will not cause unusual costs to be incurred on the Beenleigh Show Society’s part.  If the appeal is not successful, then the extra cost to the Beenleigh Show Society of appearance tomorrow in contesting the appeal is, given the calculations put in paragraph 11 of the affidavit of Mr Schefe, relatively small against the total estimate for costs.  Therefore, the application is refused.

...

Costs are reserved.  Thanks, Mr Reihana.

RESPONDENT:  Yes, sir.

MORRISON JA:  Adjourn the Court.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    QCAT Client Services Manager & Ors v Reihana

  • Shortened Case Name:

    QCAT Client Services Manager v Reihana

  • MNC:

    [2017] QCA 101

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    Morrison JA

  • Date:

    24 May 2017

Litigation History

Event Citation or File Date Notes
QCA Interlocutory Judgment [2017] QCA 101 24 May 2017 -

Appeal Status

No Status