Adelaide Bank Limited v Teni

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard an application by the Adelaide Bank Limited, a plaintiff, against Tenisio Teni and Maria Ferisita Teni, who were the enforcement debtors. The bank sought a default judgment for the recovery of possession of land due to the mortgagor's default. The application was governed by Rule 286 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, which allows a plaintiff to request judgment and prescribed costs if the claim is for the recovery of possession of land only. The Registrar allowed the costs as per items 20 and 21 of the prescribed costs in Schedule 1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, but the plaintiff argued that the amount under item 18, which includes court fees and other payments, should also be allowed.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar should have included the costs under item 18 of the prescribed costs, which pertains to court fees and other fees and payments incurred. The court examined whether the prescribed costs under items 20 and 21 already included the filing fees and other relevant costs. It was noted that the prescribed costs were structured to cover both professional costs and filing fees, thereby eliminating the need for additional claims under item 18. The court concluded that the Registrar was correct in not including an item under 18, as the prescribed costs were intended to cover all necessary expenses without the need for a detailed bill of costs. The progressive increases in prescribed costs mirrored the changes in filing fees, further supporting the conclusion that the prescribed costs already encompassed the filing fees. The court also highlighted that any issues with the current cost structure should be addressed with the Rules Committee and the government.

The court ultimately decided in favor of the Registrar, affirming that the prescribed costs under items 20 and 21 were sufficient and did not require the inclusion of item 18 costs. The plaintiff's application for additional costs under item 18 was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the prescribed costs were designed to cover all necessary expenses, including filing fees, and thus additional claims under item 18 were not warranted. The court emphasized that any changes to the cost structure should be pursued through the appropriate channels, such as the Rules Committee and the government.