Borg v Northern Rivers Finance

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Borg & Ors v Northern Rivers Finance & Ors [2004] QSC 163

PARTIES:

ANDREW JAMES BORG
(first plaintiff)
JASON MARK BYRNE
(second plaintiff)
ROBERT STUART CHRISTENSEN
(third plaintiff)
GLEN ANGELLO COPPO
(fourth plaintiff)
LAURENCE ROY DIXON
(fifth plaintiff)
IAN ANTHONY GLAZEBROOK
(sixth plaintiff)
MICHAEL CHARLES GOTTKE
(seventh plaintiff)
BRIAN KENNETH HINCHEY
(eighth plaintiff)
ROBERT MICHAEL McCLOY
(ninth plaintiff)
NANCY MARY MONTGOMERY
(tenth plaintiff)
HENRY ALEXANDER MONTGOMERY
(eleventh plaintiff)
GORDON EDWARD PARISH
(twelfth plaintiff)
GORDON JOHN REID
(thirteenth plaintiff)
JAMES MICHAEL ROACH
(fourteenth plaintiff)
GLEN ALAN SCOTT
(fifteenth plaintiff)
GASPAR SICH
(sixteenth plaintiff)
NEIL GREGORY CAMERON
(seventeenth plaintiff)
COLIN SCOTT PURDIE
(eighteenth plaintiff)
GEOFFREY DAVID RAPSON
(nineteenth plaintiff)
DREW KINGSLEY WOODMAN
(twentieth plaintiff)
NIKO JOZINOVIC
(twenty-first plaintiff)
v
NORTHERN RIVERS FINANCE PTY LTD
(first defendant)
INVESTMENT LICENCING PTY LTD
(second defendant)
NORTHEN RIVERS PLANTATION MANAGEMENT LTD
(third defendant)
DARREN PAWSKI and RALPH MARCEL NUNIS trading as “SecurInvest Accounting Services”
(fourth defendant)
DREW GRAHAM FRANCIS
(fifth defendant)
BASE METALS EXPLORATION NL
(sixth defendant)
EXPLORERS AND PROSPECTORS FINANCE LIMITED
(seventh defendant)
DARREN CHARLES HORNER
(eighth defendant)
JOHN MEARES
(ninth defendant)
BANALASTA OIL PLANTATION
(tenth defendant)
SAFEINVEST PTY LTD
(eleventh defendant)
KAREN EVANS
(twelfth defendant)
PLANTATION EQUITY PTY LTD
(thirteenth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 191 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Judgment & Costs Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2004

JUDGE:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

Order as per draft

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS - SCALES OF COSTS – SCALE APPLICABLE – whether costs on indemnity basis

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, rr 360, 362

COUNSEL:

P E Hack SC, for the first, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteen, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twenty-first plaintiffs
C Wilson, for the thirteenth defendant

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet for the first, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteen, nineteenth and twenty-first plaintiffs.
Mullins and Mullins for the thirteenth defendants

1. MACKENZIE J:  On 27 February 2004 reasons, favourable to the thirteenth defendant were given on its counterclaim.  Reasons why certain costs orders were to be made were also delivered on the same day.

1. In relation to the counterclaim certain orders were formulated.  The relevant parties consent to the orders being set aside and orders pronounced which comprehensively finalise the proceedings.  A draft was provided.  The only substantial remaining dispute is whether costs should be ordered in favour of the thirteenth defendant in respect of the successful counterclaim on the indemnity basis or the standard basis.  The basis for claiming indemnity costs is that offers to settle the counterclaim were made on 24 October 2003, to remain open for a period which expired on the Friday before the hearing of the counterclaim.  The counterclaim had been adjourned when the primary proceedings were heard.  More will be said about this shortly. 

1. Under rule 360 the issue is whether the judgment obtained was no less favourable than the offer to settle.  If that is the case, the onus is on the defendant to show that…