Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited - [2025] QSC 180

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited [2025] QSC 180

PARTIES:

BEVERLEY AILSA BROWN

(plaintiff)

v
SELTSAM PTY LIMITED (formerly Wunderlich Limited ACN 000 003 734)

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 8483 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES: 19 – 29 May 2025; 3 June 2025; written submissions filed 12, 19 and 26 June 2025

JUDGE:

Treston J

ORDER:

The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs calculated on the standard basis up to and including 4 April 2025 and calculated on the indemnity basis from 5 April 2025.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY – where judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff following a civil jury trial – where the plaintiff made an offer to settle the action which was not accepted by the defendant and the offer was not less favourable than the judgment sum – where the plaintiff contends that pursuant to r 360(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) the defendant should be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on standard basis up to and including the date of the offer and on an indemnity basis thereafter – where the defendant contends that another order for costs is appropriate in the circumstances and seeks an order that it pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis and relies upon the following factors as representing a significant change to the plaintiff’s case after the offer was made: (1) the plaintiff made a significant amendment to the statement of claim (2) the plaintiff provided several expert reports that were relevant in terms of the defendant’s assessment of the offer (3) the plaintiff tendered an additional statement during trial pursuant to s 92(1)(b)(i) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether costs ought to be calculated on the indemnity basis

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 353, 360
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 92

Bankier v HAP 2 Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] QSC 186
Castro v Hillery [2003] 1 Qd R 651

COUNSEL:

HL Blattman KC with JM Hewson for the plaintiff

H Berghofer for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Rogalski Lawyers for the plaintiff
Edmondson Legal for the defendant

On 3 June 2025, after a civil jury trial, judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff ordering that the defendant pay the sum of $1,602,313.00.
On 4 April 2025, the plaintiff made an offer pursuant to r 353 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) to settle her action for a sum of $900,000 plus costs. The defendant did not accept that offer.
Rule 360 UCPR provides:
360 Costs if offer by plaintiff
(1) This rule applies if—
(a)the plaintiff makes an offer that is not accepted by the defendant; and
(b)the plaintiff obtains an order no less favourable than the offer; and
(c)the court is satisfied that…

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.

Continue reading Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited [2025] QSC 180
Case: [2025] QSC 180
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited, the plaintiff, Brown, pursued legal action against the defendant, Seltsam Pty Limited, in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute arose from an incident that occurred during a civil jury trial, where judgment was ultimately entered in favour of Brown. Notably, prior to the trial, Brown had made an offer to settle the action, which Seltsam Pty Limited did not accept. The offer was not less favourable than the sum awarded in the judgment, leading to a contention over the appropriate allocation of costs under r 360(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Brown argued that Seltsam Pty Limited should be ordered to pay Brown's costs on a standard basis up to and including the date of the offer, and on an indemnity basis thereafter. Conversely, Seltsam Pty Limited contended that the circumstances warranted a different order for costs and sought to limit its liability to paying Brown's costs on a standard basis, citing several factors that indicated significant changes to Brown's case post the offer.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate method of calculating costs, particularly whether they should be assessed on an indemnity basis following the date of the rejected offer. The court was tasked with evaluating the relevance of the factors presented by Seltsam Pty Limited, including a significant amendment to the statement of claim, the provision of expert reports, and the tendering of an additional statement during the trial. The court had to determine if these developments constituted a significant change in the circumstances that would justify departing from the usual indemnity costs order.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the factors put forward by Seltsam Pty Limited but ultimately concluded that these did not sufficiently alter the landscape of the case to warrant a deviation from the usual indemnity costs order. The court found that the significant amendment to the statement of claim, the expert reports, and the additional statement did not sufficiently change the nature or scope of Brown's claims to warrant a different cost order. Consequently, the court ordered Seltsam Pty Limited to pay Brown's costs calculated on a standard basis up to and including 4 April 2025, and on an indemnity basis from 5 April 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs calculated on the standard basis up to and including 4 April 2025 and calculated on the indemnity basis from 5 April 2025.

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:	Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited [2025] QSC 180
PARTIES:	BEVERLEY AILSA BROWN (plaintiff) v SELTSAM PTY LIMITED (formerly Wunderlich Limited ACN 000 003 734) (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 8483 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	19 – 29 May 2025; 3 June 2025; written submissions filed 12, 19 and 26 June 2025
JUDGE:	Treston J
ORDER:	The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs calculated on the standard basis up to and including 4 April 2025 and calculated on the indemnity basis from 5 April 2025.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY – where judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff following a civil jury trial – where the plaintiff made an offer to settle the action which was not accepted by the defendant and the offer was not less favourable than the judgment sum – where the plaintiff contends that pursuant to r 360(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) the defendant should be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on standard basis up to and including the date of the offer and on an indemnity basis thereafter – where the defendant contends that another order for costs is appropriate in the circumstances and seeks an order that it pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis and relies upon the following factors as representing a significant change to the plaintiff’s case after the offer was made: (1) the plaintiff made a significant amendment to the statement of claim (2) the plaintiff provided several expert reports that were relevant in terms of the defendant’s assessment of the offer (3) the plaintiff tendered an additional statement during trial pursuant to s 92(1)(b)(i) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether costs ought to be calculated on the indemnity basis Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 353, 360 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 92 Bankier v HAP 2 Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] QSC 186 Castro v Hillery [2003] 1 Qd R 651
COUNSEL:	HL Blattman KC with JM Hewson for the plaintiff H Berghofer for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Rogalski Lawyers for the plaintiff Edmondson Legal for the defendant