Brian Geaney Pty Ltd v Close Constructions Pty Ltd

Brian Geaney Pty Ltd, along with The Proprietors 102 Denham Street, Building Units Plan Number 100002, brought an action against Close Constructions Pty Ltd, Paul Cruice Architect Pty Ltd, and Cyril Caswell. The dispute centred around claims related to construction defects in a building. The Supreme Court of Queensland heard the matter, presided over by Justice Dutney. The legal issues the court needed to address included the determination of liability for the construction defects, the assessment of damages, and the allocation of costs among the parties. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the settlement offers made by the defendants could affect the plaintiff's entitlement to costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The court examined the settlement offers made by the defendants before the trial. The first and third defendants jointly offered $50,000, which was less than the amount eventually recovered against the first defendant. The second defendant made an offer of $25,000 plus costs, but these costs were not clearly defined, making it difficult to determine if the offer, including costs, was more or less favourable than the final judgment. The court held that the first and third defendants' offer was insufficient to displace the plaintiff's usual entitlement to costs. Regarding the second defendant's offer, the court concluded that because of the vagueness of the costs component, it could not be determined whether the offer was more favourable than the final judgment, including costs. Therefore, the court found that the offers were not sufficient to alter the standard costs entitlement of the successful plaintiff.

In its judgment, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the action, to be assessed on the standard basis applicable to an action in the District Court, where the amount recovered was $69,529.00. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' reserved costs of a specific adjourned hearing date. The court also apportioned liability among the defendants, entitling the second defendant to be indemnified by the first and third defendants for costs exceeding 40% of the plaintiff's standard costs, in the same proportion that the first and third defendants were to indemnify the second defendant for the judgment amount.