Logan APZ Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Logan

[2017] QCA 288

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Quantum
4. › Assessment of likely recoverable costs
5. › Whether judge erred by having regard to actual legal costs rather than predicting costs assessed on standard basis
6. › Whether judge required to adopt item-based assessment consistently with court scale
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 670
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Quantum
4. › Discounting for prospects of early resolution
5. › Whether judge failed to discount assessment for chance of case collapsing without coming to trial
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Form of security
4. › Whether judge erred by excluding registered mortgage over land
5. › Whether bank guarantee properly required as form of security
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from discretionary order for security for costs
4. › Whether House v The King error demonstrated
5. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

A judge assessing quantum of security for costs is not acting as a costs assessor and may be guided by competing expert reports, adopting a figure between them. The process of estimation embodies necessary reliance on the judge's 'feel' of the case. An appellate court will apply a cautious approach to detecting error in such assessments, particularly where the judge's impressions of case complexity were instrumental. A judge is not required to state a specific percentage discount for prospects of early resolution; it is sufficient to balance the prospect of early resolution against the risk of the case going longer. Security by way of registered mortgage over unidentified land is not a sound exercise of discretion.