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

Multi-Service Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Osborne[2010] QCA 172

Multi-Service Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Osborne[2010] QCA 172

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

 

PARTIES:

FILE NO/S:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

2 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane 

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Muir JA and Daubney J

Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The applicants be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of each appeal

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL COSTS FUND – POWER TO GRANT INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL –applicant respondents sought to apply for an indemnity certificate under s 15(1) Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) – whether indemnity certificate should be granted

Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 15, s 21

Cameron v Noosa Shire Council [2006] QCA 144, cited

Holdway v Arcuri Lawyers (A Firm) [2008] QCA 302, cited

Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 526, cited

COUNSEL:

D Savage SC, with I A Erskine, for the applicant

P Morrison QC, with P Tucker, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Tucker & Cowen for the applicant

Ernst & Young for the respondent

[1]  THE COURT:  This Court allowed appeals against orders in proceedings BS4620/06 and BS5388/04 that the appellants' "application for reactivation" of the proceeding be refused.  The applicant respondents have applied for an order that they be granted an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) in respect of each of the appeals.

[2]  Section 15(1) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) provides:

"15Grant of indemnity certificate

(1)Where an appeal against the decision of a court—

(a)to the Supreme Court;

(b)to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court;

on a question of law succeeds, the Supreme Court may, upon application made in that behalf, grant to any respondent to the appeal an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal."

[3]  The Court's discretion to grant an indemnity certificate is unfettered[1] but, of course, must be exercised judicially on relevant considerations.

[4]  The fate of the appeal was dependent, essentially, on two matters:  the correctness of the prior approach of the primary judge to the construction of Practice Direction No.4 of 2002 and whether there was a factual error in the primary judge's reasons.

[5]  It was held that the primary judge's conclusion was based, at least in part, on a factual error.  That error was not one based in any way on the applicants' conduct or submissions.  That is a matter which supports the application.[2]

[6]  The submissions at first instance by both parties accepted the principles expounded by the primary judge in ARC Holdings Pty Ltd v Riana Pty Ltd & Anor.[3]  Those principles were challenged on appeal and held to be erroneous.  In those circumstances it seems to be appropriate that the application be granted.

[7]  It is ordered that the applicants be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of each appeal.

Footnotes

[1] Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 21(1); Cameron v Noosa Shire Council [2006] QCA 144 atpara [2].

[2] Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 526 at para [17] and Holdway v Arcuri Lawyers (AFirm) [2008] QCA 302 at para [9].

[3] [2008] QSC 191.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Multi-Service Group Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Osborne & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Multi-Service Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Osborne

  • MNC:

    [2010] QCA 172

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    McMurdo P, Muir JA, Daubney J

  • Date:

    02 Jul 2010

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
QCA Interlocutory Judgment[2010] QCA 17202 Jul 2010-

Appeal Status

No Status

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Arc Holdings Pty Ltd v Riana Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 191
1 citation
Cameron v Noosa Shire Council [2006] QCA 144
2 citations
Holdway v Arcuri Lawyers (A Firm) [2008] QCA 302
2 citations
Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 526
2 citations

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Mark AC Enterprises Pty Ltd v Done Diesel Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] QDC 3141 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.