Baker v Dubickas and Ors (No. 2) - [2021] QDC 236

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baker v Dubickas & Ors (No. 2) [2021] QDC 236

PARTIES:

JAMIE ARTHUR CHRISTOPER BAKER

(plaintiff)

v

PETA JANENE DUBICKAS

(first defendant)

and
EAMONN ROY DUBICKAS
(second defendant)
and
MARK SHIELD
(third defendant)
and
VIRGIN AUSTRALIA AIRLINES PTY LTD

(fourth defendant)

FILE NO:

BD3766/2019

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDER:

The plaintiff pay the first, second and third defendants’ costs to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – - where the plaintiff sued the defendants for making defamatory statements – where the limitation period under s 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had expired – where plaintiff’s claim dismissed – where the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding to be assessed on a standard basis subject to any further order in the event submissions are made within 14 days – where two defendants self-represented – where plaintiff made a submission that the order of cost should not include self-represented parties – whether plaintiff should pay each defendant’s costs of the proceedings

LEGISLATION:

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15
Federal Court of Australia Act 1977 (Cth), s 43

Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 221

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

CASES:

Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403, cited
Chiropractic Board of Australia v Jamison [2013] QSC 77, applied
Freitag & Anor v Bruderle & Anor [2012] QSC 207, applied
Merrin v The Commissioner of Police [2012] QCA 181, applied
Von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia (No. 2) [2009] FCAFC 192; (2009) 262 ALR 430, cited

COUNSEL:
E Robinson for the plaintiff
Self-representation for the first and second defendants

P J McCafferty QC for the third defendant

SOLICITORS:
Alexander Law for the plaintiff

Norton Rose Fulbright for the third defendant

Reasons for decision

The substantive judgement and reasons were delivered on 26 August 2021.
At the time, an order was made that, subject to any further order of the court in the event submissions are made within 14 days, the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding (including the application dealt with in these reasons) to be assessed on a standard basis.
On 9 September 2021, on the fourteenth day, submissions were filed on behalf of the plaintiff in the court and by email to my associate (copied to the email address used by the first and second defendants in the proceedings and the email address of the solicitors for the third defendant) in relation to the proposed costs order to be made.
It was accepted that any order for costs in the proceedings would be made under s 15 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Dubickas and Ors (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QDC 236
Decision Date: 27 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baker v Dubickas and Ors, the plaintiff sought damages for defamation from the first, second and third defendants. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as it was found that the limitation period under section 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had expired. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding, to be assessed on a standard basis, subject to any further order if submissions were made within 14 days. The plaintiff submitted that the order for costs should not include the two self-represented defendants, and the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff should pay each defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

The court considered whether the self-representation of two defendants altered the court's discretion in awarding costs. It noted that the plaintiff had not argued that the self-representation was a factor that should mitigate the cost award. The court held that self-representation did not alter the plaintiff's liability for costs, as the statutory provisions did not differentiate between represented and self-represented parties. The court emphasised that the primary consideration in determining costs was the overall fairness and justice of the case, and in this instance, the plaintiff's liability for costs remained unchanged by the self-representation of two defendants.

Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff should pay the costs of all three defendants, with the costs to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed upon. The court rejected the plaintiff's submission that self-representation should exclude two defendants from the cost order, reaffirming the principle that self-representation does not mitigate the liability for costs unless specifically argued and substantiated by the party. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions in determining cost orders and highlighted that the nature of representation does not inherently alter the financial consequences for losing parties in litigation.

The final order was that the plaintiff pay the first, second and third defendants’ costs to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff pay the first, second and third defendants’ costs to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Baker v Dubickas & Ors (No. 2) [2021] QDC 236
PARTIES:	JAMIE ARTHUR CHRISTOPER BAKER (plaintiff) v PETA JANENE DUBICKAS (first defendant) and EAMONN ROY DUBICKAS (second defendant) and MARK SHIELD (third defendant) and VIRGIN AUSTRALIA AIRLINES PTY LTD (fourth defendant)
FILE NO:	BD3766/2019
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:	The plaintiff pay the first, second and third defendants’ costs to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – - where the plaintiff sued the defendants for making defamatory statements – where the limitation period under s 10AA of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had expired – where plaintiff’s claim dismissed – where the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding to be assessed on a standard basis subject to any further order in the event submissions are made within 14 days – where two defendants self-represented – where plaintiff made a submission that the order of cost should not include self-represented parties – whether plaintiff should pay each defendant’s costs of the proceedings
LEGISLATION:	Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15 Federal Court of Australia Act 1977 (Cth), s 43 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 221 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
CASES:	Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403, cited Chiropractic Board of Australia v Jamison [2013] QSC 77, applied Freitag & Anor v Bruderle & Anor [2012] QSC 207, applied Merrin v The Commissioner of Police [2012] QCA 181, applied Von Reisner v Commonwealth of Australia (No. 2) [2009] FCAFC 192; (2009) 262 ALR 430, cited
COUNSEL:	E Robinson for the plaintiff Self-representation for the first and second defendants P J McCafferty QC for the third defendant
SOLICITORS:	Alexander Law for the plaintiff Norton Rose Fulbright for the third defendant