Both sides drew split costs orders after losing and winning on separate issues
The Supreme Court of Queensland refused to allow a defendant to rewrite a security for costs deed with new interest terms after losing.
The decision in SLB Investments Queensland Pty Ltd (in liq) v Queensland Motorways Management Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2026] QSC 132 followed an earlier ruling on Queensland Motorways' application for further security for costs against SLB, a company in liquidation backed by litigation funder LCM Funding.
The court had earlier ordered SLB to provide $450,000 for one period and $1.6 million for another. The court accepted that SLB could meet that security substantially through a deed of indemnity from insurer AmTrust Specialty Limited and a deed poll from LCM. The parties agreed on the amounts but split over the wording of the orders and who should pay costs.
Queensland Motorways pushed to insert new clauses into the AmTrust deed dealing with statutory interest under s 59 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld). It proposed a 'Judgment Rate' definition and a clause extending the indemnity to interest on five earlier tranches of security. SLB opposed the changes.
The court rejected the additions. It found the proposed clause covering the earlier deeds reached beyond the application, which had concerned only two tranches, and amounted to a retrospective change to settled arrangements.
On the remaining amendments, the court held Queensland Motorways to the manner in which it ran its case. The defendant had argued only that security should be provided by payment into court or by a bank guarantee, and had not engaged in the drafting of the AmTrust deed during the hearing. Having lost on the form of security, it could not return for a 'second go'.
The court added that the changes were unnecessary in any event. Statutory interest already fell within the deed's definition of 'Indemnified Sum', so Queensland Motorways could recover interest if AmTrust did not pay an adverse costs order within 21 days. Security guarded against the risk of non-payment rather than serving as a complete indemnity, and the evidence showed little risk that AmTrust would fail to pay.
On costs, the parties disagreed sharply. SLB sought 70 percent of its costs; Queensland Motorways argued for no order at all. The court treated quantum and form as separate events. Queensland Motorways succeeded on quantum, while SLB succeeded on the form of security.
The court ordered SLB to pay Queensland Motorways' costs on quantum and Queensland Motorways to pay SLB's costs on form, both on the standard basis. It found that the evidence and submissions split cleanly between the two issues, letting a costs assessor apportion the work.
