The Court of Appeal refused the respondent's application for an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), holding that where the error by the trial judge was one in respect of which the respondent had made submissions arguing the position ultimately adopted by the trial judge, it was not appropriate for an indemnity certificate to be issued. The underlying appeal had been allowed on the basis that the trial judge erred in finding a fiduciary relationship arose in a joint venture context without properly considering whether the alleged fiduciary undertook to act 'for or on behalf of' and 'in the interests of' the other party, as required by Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation.
The full text is available to signed-in members.