Adams Wholesale Pty Ltd v Donnelly Family Super Pty Ltd

Adams Wholesale Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Donnelly Family Super Pty Ltd in the Queensland District Court, seeking to resolve a dispute related to an alleged breach of contract. The dispute centred around a contractual agreement between the parties, with Adams Wholesale asserting that Donnelly Family Super had failed to fulfill its obligations under the agreement. Donnelly Family Super, on the other hand, denied the allegations and claimed that Adams Wholesale had acted unreasonably in its dealings. The court was required to address the preliminary issue of costs, as the parties had settled their disputes but had not reached an agreement on the costs associated with their cross-applications.

The court considered whether either party had acted unreasonably in the context of the costs incurred. It noted that while the parties had settled their disputes, they had not resolved the issue of costs, which remained contentious. The court examined the conduct of both parties throughout the proceedings, including their willingness to compromise on the substantive issues but not on the costs. The court found that neither party had acted unreasonably in the resolution of the substantive issues but that the conduct of both parties in relation to the costs was such that neither party should be awarded costs.

The court held that both applications for costs were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs. The costs were to be assessed on the standard basis of the application and cross-application, incurred subsequent to 28 April 2023. The court concluded that neither party had acted unreasonably in the resolution of the substantive issues, but their conduct in relation to the costs suggested that neither party was entitled to costs. This decision underscored the importance of the parties’ conduct in relation to the resolution of costs in the absence of a hearing on the merits.