Royds v Griffiths
[2000] QDC 206
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Royds v Griffiths[2000] QDC 206
- Add to List
Royds v Griffiths[2000] QDC 206
Royds v Griffiths[2000] QDC 206
DISTRICT COURT | No 27 of 1999 |
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE BRADLEY
JOHN ROYDS | Plaintiff |
and
ROBERT GRIFFITHS & PAMELA GRIFFITHS | Defendants |
CAIRNS
DATE 04/02/2000
JUDGMENT
HER HONOUR: Well it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the orders that I made in this Court regarding his giving notice of any change of address, which order was made on 22 October last year. It is clear that some time following that order being made the plaintiff did change address and failed to file and serve a notice of his new address within seven days of the move and in fact has only complied with the order to the extent of filing the affidavit on 18 January this year.
There is nothing on the face of that affidavit to indicate when he changed address or why he failed to comply with the order of 22 October 1999 and it is only after the defendant was forced to make reasonably extensive inquiries and put the plaintiff's solicitor on notice, that there was any compliance with the order whatsoever.
In the absence of any explanation, given the concerns of the defendants of which the plaintiff was well aware from the material in support of the previous application, there is indeed a very strong inference that the plaintiff was seeking to avoid the consequences of proceedings and certainly avoid the consequences of being unsuccessful in these proceedings.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that Rule 671(d) and (h) support an order for security of costs and in addition to that, that it is appropriate under Rule 374 sub-rule 5(d) to make an order for security for costs in view of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of 22 October last year.
MR RYALL: Your Honour, I have a draft order if that would be of assistance.
MR ROYDS: Your Honour, in respect of the quantum of that - I would say that there's not sufficient justification of that figure.
HER HONOUR: It sounds eminently reasonable to me.
MR ROYDS: Well I would submit that in an application for security for costs, there should be more strong detail of what those costs are.
HER HONOUR: Well I think that was-----
MR RYALL: I've read the affidavit of Gregory Clark Parr which is-----
HER HONOUR: Yes. That was provided in support of the previous application.
MR RYALL: And it is an assessment of costs well in excess of that figure.
HER HONOUR: Yes. Well I will make the order-----
MR ROYDS: If you would make a note that I've raised that point.
HER HONOUR: It's on the record Mr Royds. Have you given Mr Royds a copy of this draft order?
MR RYALL: Just now.
HER HONOUR: I will make an order in terms of the draft handed up and initialled by me.