Craven v Globe Valley Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 198

[25] Before I consider the merits of that application, I should make some observations about the approach to rule 675. In Goodman v Lorenzen [2000] QCA 11, relied upon by Mr Craven, the Court of Appeal was considering an application for leave to appeal against an order made in the District Court striking out proceedings after failure to failure to pay security. McPherson JA, with whom the other judges agreed, observed:

[6] The stage has now been reached where it is possible to consider the appeal now before us. As regards the plaintiff's application to set aside the order for security made on 27 May 1998, his Honour, in referring to it in his reasons delivered in December 1998, said that, except on an appeal against it, there was no power to set aside or vary that order. That was, in law, not altogether correct. The order in question was interlocutory in character, and interlocutory orders are, at least to some extent and in some circumstances, susceptible of variation either by the judge who made them or otherwise without necessity for an appeal. What is, however, generally required as a prerequisite to varying or setting aside such an order is new material providing evidence of additional relevant facts, which have arisen or been discovered since the earlier application or order was made, that require a different order from that originally made, or would have done so at the time when that order was made. See ex p Edwards [1989] 1 Qd R 139, 142. Without material of that kind, a further such application would, as Taylor J described it in Hall v Nominal Defendant [1966] HCA 36; (1966) 117 CLR 423, 440-441, ordinarily prove quite "fruitless".

[28] That phrase has not been authoritatively determined, however it was observed by Davies JA in Neylon v Bluegrass Developments Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 2 that there was an analogy between rule 675 and rule 668. That rule relevantly provides:

[29] It can be seen that the analogy with rule 675 is only a broad one, but his Honour's observations are consistent with the general thrust of the observations in Goodman v Lorenzen. The position in Goodman and contemplated in Neylon also echoes observations made in the High Court in Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39; (1981) 35 ALR 625, at 629.40 to 630.10, where the majority observed:

[30] Cases on rule 675 are concerned generally with the circumstances where the litigation, which was the subject of a previous order, has changed since the order to such a degree that the sum of security is no longer, on any view of it, appropriate. That occurred in Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QDC 280 and Aqwell Pty Ltd v BJC Drilling Services Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 266.

[31] A more direct analysis of rule 675 appears in Justice Daubney's decision in H & R Management v Bickford [2010] QSC 144, where his Honour observed:

(1981) 35 ALR 625

(1966) 117 CLR 423