Adeva Home Solutions Pty Ltd v Queensland Motorways Management Pty Ltd

(2021) 9 QR 141; [2021] QCA 198

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. › Form of security
4. › Whether security should be by payment into court, bank guarantee, or deed of indemnity from foreign insurer
5. › Principles governing choice of form
6. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 5, 670, 671, 672, 673
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Representative proceedings
4. › Whether group members' interests require special rule as to form of security
5. › Whether terms of litigation funding agreement constitute countervailing consideration
6. › Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 103ZA
1. Appeal
2. › Appellate review of discretionary decisions
3. › Interlocutory orders on practice and procedure
4. › Enhanced appellate restraint
5. › Whether error of principle demonstrated
6. › Whether order works substantial injustice
7. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Quick Take

A plaintiff has no free-standing right or entitlement to provide security for costs in the form least disadvantageous to it. The discretion as to form of security proceeds from the protective purpose of ensuring a fund accessible within the jurisdiction, and a proposal departing from that ordinary course requires demonstration of countervailing considerations. The proposition in Perera v GetSwift Ltd that security in class actions should be in the form least disadvantageous to group members should not be accepted as correct as expressed. The terms of a litigation funding agreement that may shift costs between funder and group members do not, without more, constitute a countervailing consideration warranting departure from the ordinary form of security.