Box Information Technology Pty Ltd v Crystalaid Manufacture Pty Ltd
[2012] QDC 106
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
- Box Information Technology Pty Ltd v Crystalaid Manufacture Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 106
- Add to List
Box Information Technology Pty Ltd v Crystalaid Manufacture Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 106
Box Information Technology Pty Ltd v Crystalaid Manufacture Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 106
[2012] QDC 106
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 3066 of 2011
BOX INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD | Plaintiff |
and | |
CRYSTALAID MANUFACTURE PTY LTD | Defendant |
and | |
SAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD | Third Party |
BRISBANE
DATE 19/04/2012
ORDER
CATCHWORDS | Commercial list - placing of proceedings on commercial list not allowed to delay determination of an application for security for costs |
HIS HONOUR: This proceeding is appropriate to go on the commercial list. It's necessary only to mention the claim by the plaintiff for additional remuneration based on the defendant allegedly taking access to licensed software provided by the plaintiff for staff numbers well in excess of the limited number the plaintiff says the licence permitted.
Mr Hutchinson has a very full “commercial list statement” which the Supreme Court's practice direction incorporated by reference in this Court's counterpart requires indicate that the proceeding is much more complex than that. The statement is extremely forthcoming in explaining the application for listing as a reaction to the defendant's application for security for costs. It reports that if not the plaintiff, then the individual behind it, may be in financial circumstances that are less than comfortable.
I am not expressing any view as to whether the application deserves any support because it appears to be a reaction to the security for costs application which surely has to be dealt with on its own merits. The matter deserves to be on the commercial list anyway. The defendant and third party are amenable to it going on the list, the defendant on the basis that this will not delay the hearing of its application for security for costs which is listed before the applications Judge next Monday.
I sought to prevail on the parties involved in that application who are the plaintiff and the defendant to use Court time which appears to be available today to deal with it now but Mr Hutchinson has to prepare submissions and Mr Bowden, for the defendant/applicant, is here in Court without the authorities that he would need.
I agreed with Mr Bowden's approach that the listing of the matter on the commercial list should not be allowed to delay any aspect of the proceeding, in particular the application listed for next Monday. It would be entirely contrary to the whole notion of the commercial list for a listing to impede the progress of the proceeding to determination.
The applications Judges next week are not commercial list Judges. I've undertaken to deal with that application myself at some convenient time on the day for which it's been listed.
Mr Bradley, for the third party, confirms that it is not involved in the security for costs application and that he would be grateful if his attendance were not required.
In those circumstances it's been thought convenient to make certain directions for the progress of the matter today. Those can be reviewed at any time. Review would certainly be necessary should security that might be ordered lead to the proceeding being stayed. Order as per initialled draft.
...