Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science [2019] QCA 153

PARTIES:

PETER BOND
(applicant)
v
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7811 of 2018
P & E Appeal No 3070 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Planning and Environment Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2018] QPEC 15 (Jones DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 16 July 2019
Further Order delivered 2 August 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides JJA and Crow J

ORDER:

The respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal against a decision of the Planning and Environment Court inter alia refusing to stay an appeal in that Court pending the final resolution of a criminal prosecution against the him – where the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, and the appeal was allowed in part with leave to make submissions on costs – where the parties agreed as to the appropriate costs order – whether the respondent ought to pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal

Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science[2019] QCA 137, cited

COUNSEL:

D R Gore QC, with B Rix, for the applicant
J Horton QC, with E Hoiberg, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Thomson Geer for the applicant
Herbert Smith Freehills for the respondent

THE COURT: The parties have filed submissions about the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal in Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science [2019] QCA 137. Both parties’ submissions contend that the appropriate order is that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. Neither party submits that any order should be made in relation to the costs of the proceedings in the Planning and Environment Court.
The appropriate order is that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bond was the applicant in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the decision of the Planning and Environment Court. The Planning and Environment Court had dismissed an appeal by Bond against a decision made by the Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Science. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent should bear a portion of the applicant's costs associated with the application for leave to appeal and the subsequent appeal. The Court of Appeal had previously granted leave to appeal, and the appeal was allowed in part, with the Court permitting submissions on the matter of costs.

The Supreme Court considered the appropriate allocation of costs in light of the circumstances of the case. It acknowledged the agreement between the parties regarding the appropriate costs order. The Court then addressed the principle that where parties have reached an agreement on the costs, the Court should generally uphold that agreement, unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from it. Given that there were no such reasons presented in this case, the Court determined that the respondent ought to pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal, in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

The reasoning of the Court was based on the precedents that support the enforcement of agreed costs orders and the principle of fairness in cost allocation. The Court found no grounds to depart from the agreed terms, thereby upholding the agreement between the parties regarding the costs.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal, as agreed by both parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science [2019] QCA 153
PARTIES:	PETER BOND (applicant) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENCE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7811 of 2018 P & E Appeal No 3070 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Planning and Environment Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2018] QPEC 15 (Jones DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 16 July 2019 Further Order delivered 2 August 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philippides JJA and Crow J
ORDER:	The respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal against a decision of the Planning and Environment Court inter alia refusing to stay an appeal in that Court pending the final resolution of a criminal prosecution against the him – where the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, and the appeal was allowed in part with leave to make submissions on costs – where the parties agreed as to the appropriate costs order – whether the respondent ought to pay 50 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science[2019] QCA 137, cited
COUNSEL:	D R Gore QC, with B Rix, for the applicant J Horton QC, with E Hoiberg, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Thomson Geer for the applicant Herbert Smith Freehills for the respondent