Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QSC
  3. 2020
  4. Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2020] QSC 286

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

Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd (No 2)[2020] QSC 286

Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd (No 2)[2020] QSC 286

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2020] QSC 286

PARTIES:

GET TONIC PTY LTD

(ACN 620 784 714)

(plaintiff)

v

POCKET HEALTH PTY LTD

(ACN 623 774 676)

(first defendant)

JOE ZHOU AKA JOE YOU ZHOU

(second defendant)

MENA THEODOROU

(third defendant)

TING WANG

(fourth defendant)

JOE ZHOU PTY LTD

(ACN 603 285 392)

(fifth defendant)

KEDRON 7 DAY CHEMIST PTY LTD

(ACN 625 343 392)

(sixth defendant)

FILE NO:

BS No 1641 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application (costs)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

  1. Each party’s costs of the application for further disclosure (CFI 71) are reserved.
  2. The first, second, fifth and sixth defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application for security for costs (CFI 72) to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants made application for security for costs – where security was ordered to be provided in the sum $140,000 by way of a deed of guarantee – where, at the hearing of the application, the defendants submitted that the only appropriate security was by way of bank guarantee or deposit of $220,000 – where the plaintiff, prior to the application being filed, acknowledged that security should be provided – where the amount and form of security ultimately ordered was consistent with offers previously made by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff attempted to negotiate a reasonable position in relation to the security for costs – where the defendants unreasonably refused to negotiate – whether the defendants ought to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT –  PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants made application for disclosure – where the plaintiff was ordered to give disclosure of certain documents – where the category of documents ordered to be disclosed was narrower than what was pressed by the defendants – where the order may result in disclosure of important documents relevant to the quantum of the plaintiff’s claim – whether the application was justified by the limited success given that important documents may be disclosed – whether the costs of the application ought to be reserved until the documents have been disclosed and their significance to the case is assessed

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 673

Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QSC 235, related

COUNSEL:

PD Hay for the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants/applicants

M Steele for the plaintiff/respondent

SOLICITORS:

Macpherson Kelley for the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants/applicants

Tucker & Cowan Solicitors for the plaintiff/respondent

  1. [1]
    The first, second, fifth and sixth defendants (the Zhou defendants) brought two applications against the plaintiff, one for security for its costs of the proceeding[1] and one for further disclosure.[2]  On 6 August 2020, I made the following orders:
  1. That security be provided in the sum of $140,000 for the costs of the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants up to and including the first day of trial, such security to be by way of a deed of guarantee of that sum given by PharmaData Licensing Pty Ltd, Adam Zackary Gilmore and Guy Adam McKenzie jointly and severally.
  2. The parties have liberty to apply if the terms of the deed cannot be agreed.
  3. The plaintiff give disclosure, by list delivered on or before 27 August 2020 of the following documents:
  1. (a)
    documents relevant to the numbers of users of the Get Tonic app; and
  1. (b)
    documents relevant to the profit generated  by the plaintiff in promoting and selling the Get Tonic app.
  1. The parties will be heard on the question of costs.[3]
  1. [2]
    I further ordered that the parties were at liberty to make written submissions on costs and that the issue of costs would be determined without further oral hearing.  Written submissions have now been received.

The security for costs application

  1. [3]
    The plaintiff seeks its costs of the security for costs application.  Detailed submissions were made to the effect that:
    1. (a)
      when the question of security was raised, the plaintiff acknowledged that security should be provided; and
    2. (b)
      the amount and form of security ultimately ordered was consistent with offers previously made by the plaintiff to give security.
  2. [4]
    The Zhou defendants submit that all parties’ costs of the security for costs application should be reserved or made each party’s costs in the cause.  They have also made detailed submissions the upshot of which are:
    1. (a)
      The Zhou defendants succeeded in obtaining an order for security for costs.
    2. (b)
      That order included that the directors of the plaintiff give limited personal guarantees, a condition that was not offered originally.
    3. (c)
      The original offers of security were made as one sum to meet the costs of all defendants, not just the Zhou defendants who are separately represented from other defendants.
    4. (d)
      The offer of security from the plaintiff’s solicitors sought to have the security ordered to the point of the first day of the trial with no mechanism to seek further security in the event that costs were more than contemplated.
    5. (e)
      No details of the financial position of PharmaData or its directors were provided until very late.
  3. [5]
    On 1 April 2020, the Zhou defendants’ solicitors raised the question of security for costs.  They pointed out that searches had revealed no real property held by the plaintiff.  They also said that PharmaData Licensing Pty Ltd (a related company to the plaintiff) also seems to have no real property registered in Queensland.  The letter said:

“Our clients request that by no later than 14 April you give us copies of:

  1. your client’s full P&L[4] statements for the financial years ended June 30 2018 and 2019 and full asset and liability and income and outgoings statements for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 March 2020; and
  1. to the extent those documents don’t list all assets currently owned by your client, then a copy of the current assets register for your client; and
  1. a statement as to the reasonable gross estimate of each asset’s value and whether its; and
  1. a statement as to the current debt over each such asset and so its nett worth; and
  1. a copy of each tax return lodged to date. If none have been lodged then please advise why and when they are expected to be lodged.”[5]
  1. [6]
    After giving what they described as a “conservative estimate” of their likely costs up to the first day of the trial as being “at least $300,000”, the Zhou defendants’ solicitors said this:

“For the purposes of agreeing on security to avoid an application having to be made, for the initial tranche of security only our clients will accept a capped amount of $250,000 with the usual right to seek an increase of that at any time prior to trial.

Our clients therefore require yours to provide security for their costs of this action on the following terms:

  1. Your client is to provide an irrevocable bank guarantee for $250,000 in favour of our clients in the usual terms of such guarantees when they are given in favour of a Registrar (but obviously with appropriate amendments). Alternatively, at its option it can put $250,000 into an IBD trust account with each of you and the writer as trustees on the usual terms;
  1. The bank guarantee or the cash deposit is to be able to be drawn on at any time on request once any of our clients obtain a cost order in his/its/their favour against your client and the amount of those costs has been agreed or, it hasn’t been agreed but has been assessed and a certificate of assessment issued;
  1. Our clients in accordance have the right to ask for an increase in the security as the matter progresses towards trial or, in the event that no agreement can be reached on any such increase, to make an application for security to be given in an appropriately increased amount. Your client has the same right to vary the security arrangements;
  1. Your client is to agree to give security on these terms by 14 April. The bank guarantee or cash deposit is to be given/paid within 4 weeks of today. Within the same time we are to receive a copy of the bank guarantee or alternatively evidence of the cash deposit having been made. We are happy to sign any appropriate trust account authorisations that you or your client may require with respect to payment of money to be held in your trust account at first instance, then the payment from trust into the IBD account, and then from the IBD account back to trust and from there to a nominated account when a call on the funds is made. Please give us what you think is an appropriate form of undertaking and authority form in that regard by 7 April so we can settle its terms with you by 14 April.
  1. Pending the giving of security the action is stayed other than for the currently pending costs application made by your client and any security for costs application made by any Defendant. Note that if security is not agreed then our clients reserve the right to I seek orders that your client’s current costs assessment be stayed until adequate security is given”[6] (emphasis added)
  1. [7]
    Therefore, the demand made in the letter of 1 April 2020 was:
    1. (a)
      security in the sum of $250,000; and
    2. (b)
      security to be provided by irrevocable bank guarantee in that sum.
  2. [8]
    On 16 April 2020, the plaintiff’s solicitors responded to the letter of 1 April.[7]  The plaintiff’s solicitors did not assert that security should not be provided.  Instead, security was offered in the sum of $140,000 “for any liability our client might have to the defendants for costs”.[8]  In the letter, this was said:

“We are instructed that Pharmadata has been in continued operation since 2012, generates income of approximately $250,000 per month, has expenses of approximately $150,000 per month, and has assets and equity exceeding $2.4 million. On that basis, Pharmadata will have no difficulty meeting any liability that might ever accrue under such a guarantee. Evidence of these matters will provided to you, subject to you providing undertakings that all such evidence will be received by you on the same undertakings as the documents described in Schedule 1 of the 19 March 2020. Confidentiality Undertakings given by Mr Philp and Ms Skeggs of your office.”[9] (emphasis added)

  1. [9]
    On 27 April 2020, the Zhou defendants’ solicitors responded.  They said:

“At 10:55am on Wednesday 1 April 2020 we sent you an email setting out in detail our clients’ claim for security for costs and the reasons why they ought to have security.

We told you that by 14 April our clients required security to be given by way of a bank guarantee in the usual terms for $250,000 or alternatively the $250,000 be paid into an authorised trust investment account with you and the writer as trustees on the usual terms. We proposed orders to deal with the provision of security.”

And later:

“It is proposed that Pharmadata itself would provide the guarantee. That is not acceptable. The fifth paragraph on the first page of your 16 April sets out some statements about Pharmadata’s purported asset and liability position. However, no documentation has been supplied to support those. The only appropriate security is the usual bank guarantee or the cash deposit we proposed on 1 April.” (emphasis added)

And later:

“Further, the offered $140,000 for security up to and including the first day of trial is plainly inadequate.”

And later:

“Solely in order to avoid a security costs application, our clients will accept $220,000 in lieu of $250,000 but that’s as low as they are going to go;

Further, the security is to be given by an irrevocable bank guarantee or cash deposit into your trust account and from there into an IBD interest bearing authorised trust deposit as advised in our 1 April letter. The broad terms of the making of orders and giving of a bank guarantee or the cash deposit are as set out in our 1 April letter;” (emphasis added)

And later:

“If no agreement on the security is reached within the next 7 days then the offer to fix the security for the moment at $220,00 is withdrawn. Our clients will be making their foreshadowed application for security (including seeking an order for costs) against your client without further notice.”[10]

  1. [10]
    On 5 May 2020, the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote again to the Zhou defendants’ solicitors.[11]  In that letter, this was said:

“Our letter dated 16 April 2020:-

  1. offered a guarantee for security for costs on behalf of the Plaintiff by Pharmadata Licensing Pty Ltd (‘Pharamadata’) limited to a maximum of $140,000 for any liability our client might have to the Defendants for costs up to and including the first day of trial;
  1. informed you that Pharmadata has been in continued operation since 2012, generates income of approximately $250,000 per month, has expenses of approximately $150,000 per month, and has assets and equity in excess of $2.4 million; and
  1. offered to provide evidence of those matters to you, subject to you providing undertakings that all such evidence will be received by you on the same undertakings as the documents described in Schedule 1 of the 19 March 2020 Confidentiality Undertakings given by Mr Philp and Ms Skeggs of your office.” (emphasis added)

And later, that the Zhou defendants’ solicitors had:

“1. complained that no documentation had been supplied to support Pharmadata’s asset and liability position. As noted above, we in fact offered to provide evidence in relation to Pharmadata to you on the condition that you provided confidentiality undertakings in respect of that information. We received no response from you in relation to that offer.

  1. asserted that the ‘only appropriate security’ would be a bank guarantee or cash deposit, without providing any explanation as to why you say that is the case, and contrary to the many authorities on the point of which you are of course aware.
  1. asserted that the offer of $140,000 for security up to and including the first day of trial was ‘plainly inadequate’, again without providing any explanation as to why you say that is the case.
  1. stated that your clients would accept $220,000 in lieu of $250,000 but that was ‘as low as they are going to go’. We note that we have not received any particulars or details of the calculation of those costs for which your clients have requested security. As you know, you will have to provide those details if any application is made to the Court. It may be the costs of any application can be saved by providing those details now.
  1. threatened an application against our client without further notice if no agreement on the security was reached within 7 days, being by Monday, 4 May 2020 (which was a public holiday).

You have not provided a detailed and itemised estimate of the likely standard costs of defending the matter. That being the case, your clients could not possibly justify the amount of security sought.”

And later:

“We invite your clients to provide a detailed and itemised estimate of the likely standard costs through to the first day of trial so as to substantiate the amount of your clients’ request. Without a detailed and itemised estimate, our client is unable to further consider the reasonableness (or otherwise) of the request for security.”[12] (emphasis added)

  1. [11]
    The application for security for costs was filed on 3 June 2020.
  2. [12]
    On 11 June 2020, the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote again to the Zhou defendants’ solicitors and said:

“In our letter dated 16 April 2020, and again in our letter dated 5 May 2020:-

  1. the Defendants were offered a guarantee for security for costs by Pharmadata Licensing Pty Ltd (‘Pharmadata’) limited to a maximum of $140,000 for any liability our client might have to the Defendants for costs up to and including the first day of trial;
  1. we informed you that Pharmadata has been in continuous operation since 2012, generated income of approximately $250,000 per month, had expenses of approximately $150,000 per month, and had assets and equity in excess of $2.4 million; and
  1. we offered to provide evidence of those matters to you, subject to you providing undertakings that all such evidence would be received by you on the same undertakings as the documents described in Schedule 1 of the 19 March 2020 undertakings given by Mr Philp and Ms Skeggs of your office.

Further, in our letter dated 5 May 2020, we invited you to:-

  1. provide any explanation as to why you say the only appropriate security would be a bank guarantee or cash deposit (as it is unclear to us why you could say that is the case); and
  1. provide us with a detailed and itemised estimate of the likely standard costs through to the first day of trial, so as to substantiate the amount of your clients’ request for security.

We received no response from you to our letter dated 5 May 2020. Instead, your clients filed their Application. In the circumstances, your clients’ Application was premature and may have been avoided entirely had your clients responded to our correspondence.”

  1. [13]
    It was in the letter of 11 June 2020 that the plaintiff’s solicitors made a further offer of security in these terms:

“Offer of Security

Our client again hereby offers your clients security for cost as follows:

  1. the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants are offered a guarantee for security for costs by Pharmadata limited to a maximum of $140,000 for any liability our client might have to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants for costs up to and including the first day of trial; and
  1. your firm, as solicitors for the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants, is offered evidence of the worth of Pharmadata, subject to you providing undertakings that all such evidence would be received on the same undertakings as the documents described in Schedule 1 of the 19 March 2020 undertakings given by Mr Philp and Ms Skeggs of your office, and the 21 May 2020 undertaking given by Mr Wilkins of your office.

Further, our client hereby offers your clients security for costs as follows:

  1. the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants are offered a guarantee for security for costs by each of Guy Mckenzie and Adam Gilmore, the directors of the Plaintiff, limited to a maximum of $140,000 for any liability our client might have to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants for costs up to and including the first day of trial; and
  1. your firm, as solicitors for the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants, is offered evidence of the worth of Mr Mckenzie and Mr Gilmore, subject to you providing undertakings that all such evidence would be received on the same undertakings as the documents described in Schedule 1 of the 19 March 2020 undertakings given by Mr Philp and Ms Skeggs of your office, and the 21 May 2020 undertaking given by Mr Wilkins of your office.

For the avoidance of doubt, the guarantees offered to your clients (being the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants) by Pharmadata, Mr Mckenzie and Mr Gilmore would be for a cumulative total of $140,000, and not for any amount in excess of that amount.”[13] (emphasis added)

  1. [14]
    Finally, in order to protect their client’s position, this was said in the letter of 11 June 2020:

“If you proceed with the Application for security for costs, it will be opposed.

The Application will be opposed including on the grounds that, prior to filing the Application, your clients failed and/or refused to provide anything to substantiate the quantum of security sought by your clients, and on the grounds that your clients were, in any event, offered security for their costs.

Exhibit ‘KP-9’ to that Affidavit of Kenneth Philp sworn 5 June 2020 (served on us after the Application has been filed and served) was the first attempt that your clients made to provide a detailed and itemised estimate of what they say are the likely standard costs of defending the matter. Prior to receiving that Affidavit, and despite our request, we had not been provided with anything to substantiate the quantum of security sought by your clients.

In response to the Application, we intend to put on affidavit evidence which will, inter alia, respond to the quantum of security sought (which are, with respect, excessive), and which we say do not represent an accurate estimate of likely standard costs.

We are in the process of preparing that Affidavit material; it will be filed and served in due course.

Our client reserves the right to rely on this letter, including on the question of costs, in respect of the Application.”[14]

  1. [15]
    In their correspondence up to the time of filing the application for security for costs, the Zhou defendants’ solicitors made it clear that:
    1. (a)
      the only security that would be accepted was a bank guarantee or trust deposit;
    2. (b)
      their clients would not accept a guarantee; and
    3. (c)
      the bank guarantee or deposit would have to be of an amount of $220,000.
  2. [16]
    The plaintiff’s solicitors had:
    1. (a)
      accepted, by the letter of 16 April 2020, that security ought to be provided;
    2. (b)
      offered the guarantee of PharmaData;
    3. (c)
      offered to provide evidence of the financial worth of PharmaData (and had seen the Zhou defendants’ solicitors not take up that offer);
    4. (d)
      asked for details as to the calculation of the amount of security claimed (and seen the Zhou defendants’ solicitors provide no meaningful information to that effect until the application was filed);
    5. (e)
      made it clear that the $140,000 by way of guarantee was an offer to cover only the Zhou defendants’ costs;
    6. (f)
      after the application was filed, offered the guarantees of their client’s directors, Mr McKenzie and Mr Gilmore, only to see that offer ignored.
  3. [17]
    What can be seen is that the Zhou defendants made it very clear that they were not interested in negotiating any terms of security for costs which did not involve a bank guarantee or deposit in the sum of $220,000.  On the other hand, the plaintiff’s solicitors were trying hard to negotiate a position in circumstances where the Zhou defendant’s chose to close the door on negotiations.
  4. [18]
    The position adopted by the Zhou defendants was, at best for them, bullish.  It is well-established that security may take various forms.  The UCPR provides for the court to determine the form of security.[15]  A guarantee may be an acceptable form of security.  The plaintiff’s solicitors were offering material to show that a guarantee was acceptable.  They were also attempting to obtain material from the Zhou defendants justifying the amount of security claimed.  Their efforts were in vain because the Zhou defendants refused to negotiate.
  5. [19]
    The conduct of the application itself by the Zhou defendants was odd.  Mr McKenzie and Mr Gilmore had sworn affidavits setting out their financial worth.  In those affidavits, they had expressed opinions as to the value of real estate owned by them.  Those opinions were inadmissible.  However, it was obvious from the affidavits that Messrs McKenzie and Gilmore are people of financial substance.
  6. [20]
    After the Zhou defendants took the objection to the opinion evidence of the value of assets, Messrs McKenzie and Gilmore were called and gave evidence about their assets.  Mr Gilmore was barely cross-examined and Mr McKenzie was not cross-examined at all.  That whole exercise was a waste of time and reflected the unreasonable stance that the Zhou defendants had taken. 
  7. [21]
    Against that history, the Zhou defendants now wish to justify the bringing of the application by pointing to alleged defects in the offers which had been made by the plaintiff’s solicitors to attempt to reach a position on the question of security for costs.  No offer short of a bank guarantee or deposit of $220,000 would have satisfied the Zhou defendants.  That is exactly what they said in their solicitors’ correspondence. 
  8. [22]
    On both the central issues, namely the amount and form of the security, the Zhou defendants failed. 
  9. [23]
    The Zhou defendants obtained security in an amount which was offered by the plaintiff’s solicitors before the application was filed.  It is true that the offer of guarantees by Mr Gilmore and Mr McKenzie were not made until after the filing of the application.  However, that offer was not accepted and at the hearing of the application the Zhou defendants pressed the position that they had always taken, namely that the only appropriate security was by way of bank guarantee or deposit of $220,000.
  10. [24]
    The plaintiff attempted at all times to negotiate a reasonable position in relation to the security for costs.  The Zhou defendants unreasonably refused to negotiate.  The position adopted by the plaintiff was vindicated by the decision of the court.  The Zhou defendants should pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application for security for costs.

The disclosure application

  1. [25]
    Mr Wilkins, a solicitor employed by the Zhou defendants’ solicitors, was tasked with the job of examining the plaintiff’s disclosure.  He prepared a document setting out 27 categories of documents where disclosure was said to be inadequate.
  2. [26]
    On 5 February 2020, the alleged deficiencies were raised by the Zhou defendants’ solicitors with the plaintiff’s solicitors.  Correspondence passed between the solicitors.  A supplementary list of documents was produced through a Dropbox link on 8 May 2020, although it was not until 22 May 2020 that the plaintiff’s solicitors provided the passwords necessary to enable the Zhou defendants’ solicitors to access the Dropbox.
  3. [27]
    On 16 June 2020, the application was filed.  This sought the further disclosure of documents in 22 of the 27 categories.  After the application was filed, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, swearing that most of the categories of documents were not within the plaintiff’s possession or control.
  4. [28]
    On the hearing of the application, the Zhou defendants pressed for disclosure of categories 26 and 27 identified by Mr Wilkins.  Those categories are:

“26. Documents showing the value of the agreement that is alleged would have been entered into between the Plaintiffs and Tonic Health Media were it not for the Defendants’ alleged conduct.

  1. Without limiting item 26 above, all documents establishing the quantum of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages in each of the prayers for relief 1-6 inclusive. Your client will have to disclose as part of this all the financial records of any description that a Plaintiff would typically have to give to an independent expert accountant for the purposes of the accountant preparing an expert report to the Court on quantum.”
  1. [29]
    The Zhou defendants achieved an order that the plaintiff make further disclosure but for a limited category of documents.
  2. [30]
    The plaintiff submits that notwithstanding the partial success of the Zhou defendants on the application, they ought still pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application, or alternatively, there be no order for costs. 
  3. [31]
    The plaintiff submits that the disclosure application was unnecessary or premature.  Complaints are made about the nature of the request for further disclosure.  The plaintiff rightly points out that the categories of documents ordered to be delivered and disclosed were narrower than what was finally pressed by the Zhou defendants. 
  4. [32]
    The Zhou defendants submit that the costs of the disclosure application should either be reserved, or alternatively, “be each parties’ costs in the proceeding (subject to matters submitted at paragraph 19 below)”.  I think the reference to paragraph 19 should be a reference to paragraph 18 of the Zhou defendants’ written submissions on costs which is in these terms:

“18. It is respectfully submitted that the plaintiff should not have any costs of the disclosure application when between 5 February and 15 June 2020, it provided no substantive response to the MK Clients’ complaints regarding disclosure when it could and should have done so.”

  1. [33]
    The Zhou defendants submit that, in context, they were substantially successful in the application.  They say that the abandonment of the pursuit of many of the categories of documents only occurred once the plaintiff properly addressed their complaints about disclosure and an affidavit was sworn as to the existence or otherwise of documents.  They also submit that the order they did secure was important as it is likely to disclose documents relevant to the important question of quantum of the plaintiff’s claim.
  2. [34]
    Given that I heard extensive submissions on the application and received detailed and helpful written submissions on the question of costs, it is desirable that I determine the question of costs rather than reserve them, if possible.  However, the Zhou defendants’ best submission, in my view, is that even though the pursuit of many categories of documents were abandoned, the application was justified by the limited success given that important documents will be disclosed.  Alternatively, the plaintiff’s best submission may be that there are no significant documents and the application was a waste of time and money.  The strength or otherwise of those submissions is better assessed later, when the documents ordered to be disclosed have been disclosed and their significance to the case assessed.
  3. [35]
    For those reasons, I will reserve each party’s costs of the disclosure application.

Orders

  1. [36]
    I make the following orders:
  1. Each party’s costs of the application for further disclosure (CFI 71) are reserved.
  2. The first, second, fifth and sixth defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application for security for costs (CFI 72) to be assessed.

Footnotes

[1]CFI 72.

[2]CFI 71.

[3]Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QSC 235.

[4]A reference to profit and loss statements.

[5]Affidavit of Emily Jane Anderson, CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 2. Reproduced faithfully including any grammatical errors in the original.

[6]CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 2.

[7]CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 4.

[8]Presumably all defendants.

[9]CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 4.

[10]CFI 75.

[11]CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 9.

[12]CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 10.

[13]CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 14.

[14]CFI 75, exhibit EJA-1, page 14.

[15]Rule 673.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd (No 2)

  • MNC:

    [2020] QSC 286

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Davis J

  • Date:

    18 Sep 2020

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Get Tonic Pty Ltd v Pocket Health Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 235
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QSC 235
Cite 2 - [2020] QSC 235

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.