Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd v Recycling Developments Pty Ltd - [2022] QSC 118

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd v Recycling Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QSC 118

PARTIES:

BESPOKE RECYCLING INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
ACN 132 325 314

(applicant)

v
RECYCLING DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 634 377 030

(first respondent)

TEB ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

ACN 142 685 372

ATF THE PERROTT FAMILY TRUST
ABN 95 197 523 153

(second respondent)

SHANE CUNNINGHAM

(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 660 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

13 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2022

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDER:

As per the initialled draft and placed with the papers

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – REGULATED COSTS: GROSS OR FIXED COSTS, LUMP SUM ORDERS OR CAPPING ORDERS AND LIKE MATTERS – POWER TO ORDER – where there is an application for discontinuance – where the first respondent seeks that costs be fixed – where the applicant seeks an order that costs be assessed if not agreed – whether it is appropriate to make a fixed costs order – whether approach taken to estimating the costs is logical, fair and reasonable

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 304, r 687, r 697

Amos v Wiltshire [2016] QCA 70

Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1273

COUNSEL:

M A Goldsworthy for the Applicant
C Jennings QC for the First Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Origin Lawyers for the Applicant Clayton Utz for the First Respondent

This matter first came before the Court back in January, during the Court vacation period, for the hearing of an urgent application for an injunction. The hearing proceeded before me on 13 and 14 January for parts of those days, and returned the following Wednesday, 19 January, for a hearing which took up substantially the whole of that day in respect of the injunctive relief sought.
On 19 January 2022, orders were made refusing the interlocutory relief sought in the originating application, filed 13 January 2022. Subsequent orders were made, including that the parties attend a mediation by 15 February 2022, and that the proceeding otherwise continue as stated by claim. Directions were made for the filing and service of a statement of claim, a defence and a reply.
Subsequent to those directions being made, the parties attended a mediation, which was unsuccessful. Further, the date for the delivery for the statement of claim was extended by consent orders.
The application before the Court today is an application by the first and second respondents to dismiss the proceeding and seeking a fixed costs order. Events have overtaken that application. By application, which was filed today, the applicant applies to the Court to discontinue the proceeding, pursuant to rule 304(2) of the Uniform Civil…

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 Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd v Recycling Development... 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: [2022] QSC 118
Decision Date: 13 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd v Recycling Developments Pty Ltd, the primary dispute centred on the allocation of costs between the parties following the application for discontinuance of proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The first respondent, Recycling Developments Pty Ltd, sought a fixed costs order, while the applicant, Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd, requested that if the costs were not agreed upon, they be assessed. The court was required to determine whether a fixed costs order was appropriate and if the method employed by the first respondent in estimating the costs was logical, fair, and reasonable.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles governing the allocation of costs in civil proceedings. The court had to consider whether the general rule of costs following the event applied and how discretion should be exercised in the context of a fixed costs order. The first respondent's approach to estimating the costs was also scrutinised to ensure it met the standards of being logical, fair, and reasonable.

The court concluded that the general rule of costs following the event applied, but given the specific circumstances of the case, a fixed costs order was appropriate. The court found the first respondent's method of estimating the costs to be logical, fair, and reasonable. Consequently, the court made an order that costs be fixed in accordance with the first respondent's estimate, subject to any agreement between the parties or an assessment if no agreement was reached.

As per the initialled draft and placed with the papers, the orders of the court were that the costs be fixed in accordance with the first respondent's estimate, subject to any agreement between the parties or an assessment if no agreement was reached.

Orders

Orders of the court

As per the initialled draft and placed with the papers

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:	Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltd v Recycling Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QSC 118
PARTIES:	BESPOKE RECYCLING INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ACN 132 325 314 (applicant) v RECYCLING DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 634 377 030 (first respondent) TEB ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 142 685 372 ATF THE PERROTT FAMILY TRUST ABN 95 197 523 153 (second respondent) SHANE CUNNINGHAM (third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 660 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	13 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 April 2022
JUDGE:	Williams J
ORDER:	As per the initialled draft and placed with the papers
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – REGULATED COSTS: GROSS OR FIXED COSTS, LUMP SUM ORDERS OR CAPPING ORDERS AND LIKE MATTERS – POWER TO ORDER – where there is an application for discontinuance – where the first respondent seeks that costs be fixed – where the applicant seeks an order that costs be assessed if not agreed – whether it is appropriate to make a fixed costs order – whether approach taken to estimating the costs is logical, fair and reasonable PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 304, r 687, r 697 Amos v Wiltshire [2016] QCA 70 Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1273
COUNSEL:	M A Goldsworthy for the Applicant C Jennings QC for the First Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Origin Lawyers for the Applicant Clayton Utz for the First Respondent