Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

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

Iron Gates Pty Ltd v Richmond River Shire Council

 

[2006] QSC 288

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

 

PARTIES:

FILE NO/S:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

The costs of and incidental to the applications for security for costs by the sixth and seventh defendants and by the eight and ninth defendants be costs in the cause.

CATCHWORDS:

Costs of application

COUNSEL:

G A Thompson SC and D Kelly for the applicants/eighth and ninth defendants
L Kelly SC and D de Jersey for the applicants/sixth and seventh defendants
D J S Jackson QC and R Jackson for the respondents/first and second plaintiffs

SOLICITORS:

Barry & Nilsson for the applicants/eighth and ninth defendants
Thynne & Macartney for the applicants/sixth and seventh defendants
Brian Bartley & Associates for the respondents/plaintiffs

[1] The sixth and seventh defendants and the eighth and ninth defendants were successful in their applications for further security for the costs of the present proceedings.  They each seek that the respondents who are the plaintiffs pay the costs of those applications.

[2] The respondents had offered security in the amount of $300,000 to each of the applicants for the costs of the trial. 

[3] The sixth and seventh defendants accepted that sum for the trial costs but contended that they were entitled to further security not provided for in an earlier order on 3 March 2003 which would encompass costs since then and up to the trial which the respondents resisted. 

[4] The sixth and seventh defendants were successful on the application although there was some reduction in the costs sought.  The original security for costs order included that the costs of the application be costs in the cause but I note that it was a consent order.  The respondents made an appropriate offer of security for the trial.  The prospects of success as against the sixth and seventh defendants cannot be sensibly evaluated save to note that the claim is brought in both contract and tort against the sixth defendant there being a closer relationship between the respondents and the sixth and seventh defendants than with some of the original participants in the development who are defendants. 

[5] The order in respect of the sixth and seventh defendants’ application is that the costs of and incidental to the application for security for costs be costs in the cause. 

[6] The eighth and ninth defendants in their application sought orders that the costs of the application be costs in the cause.  Whilst those defendants did not seek formally to amend their application their submissions seeking the costs of the application may be taken to be such an application. 

[7] The eighth and ninth defendants did not accept the offer of $300,000 as security for the costs of the trial.  The respondents contested the eighth and ninth defendants’ entitlement to seek further security which was not an unarguable position.  The eight and ninth defendants were successful but the quantum contended for by them was reduced and the trial costs security was very close to the amount offered. 

[8] Like the situation with the sixth and seventh defendants it is not easy to consider the strength of the case by the respondents in this very complex litigation but to note the closer contractual relationship with the eighth defendant than with the New South Wales defendants.

[9] The order in respect of the eighth and ninth defendants’ application is that the costs of and incidental to the application for security for costs be costs in the cause. 

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Iron Gates Pty Ltd & Anor v Richmond River Shire Council & Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Iron Gates Pty Ltd v Richmond River Shire Council

  • MNC:

    [2006] QSC 288

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    White J

  • Date:

    05 Oct 2006

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status