Kiri Te Kanawa v Leading Edge Events Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 274

Kiri Te Kanawa v Leading Edge Events Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 274

No sufficient ground was shown for discharge of Beazley JA's qualifying order. Properly understood, her Honour did not intend to preserve access to the full $250,000 security regardless of recoverable costs, but to preserve the first defendant's ability to recover costs likely to be awarded if her appeal succeeded. Her Honour's use of the 15 per cent assessment, uplifted from an estimated $60,000 to $100,000 to allow for the challenge to that assessment, disclosed no error of law, material error of fact, or reviewable discretionary error. The reference to $600,000 was not evidence or a concession requiring a different result, and in any event it concerned solicitor and client costs rather...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 for Discharge of a Qualifying Order Made by a Judge of Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Discharge of Interlocutory Qualifying Order
Outcome
The application for discharge of the qualifying order was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['discharge of Order of Judge of Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'leave to Appeal Against Costs Order' 'review of Discretionary Decisions']
['procedure' 'costs'] ['discharge of Order of Judge of Appeal' 'security for Costs' 'leave to Appeal Against Costs Order' 'review of Discretionary Decisions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 for Discharge of a Qualifying Order Made by a Judge of Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Discharge of Interlocutory Qualifying Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the qualifying order made by Beazley JA should be discharged under s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970.' 'Whether Beazley JA erred by allowing the stay of discharge of security for costs to cease upon provision of alternative security of $100,000 rather than maintaining security of $250,000.' 'Whether Beazley JA failed to take account of a material consideration, took into account an irrelevant consideration, or was plainly wrong in assessing the amount of security to remain.']

Ratio Decidendi

No sufficient ground was shown for discharge of Beazley JA's qualifying order. Properly understood, her Honour did not intend to preserve access to the full $250,000 security regardless of recoverable costs, but to preserve the first defendant's ability to recover costs likely to be awarded if her appeal succeeded. Her Honour's use of the 15 per cent assessment, uplifted from an estimated $60,000 to $100,000 to allow for the challenge to that assessment, disclosed no error of law, material error of fact, or reviewable discretionary error. The reference to $600,000 was not evidence or a concession requiring a different result, and in any event it concerned solicitor and client costs rather...

Court Disposition

The application for discharge of the qualifying order was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for discharge of the qualifying order should be dismissed with costs.']