Chaudhary v Fox - [2025] QSC 144

QUEENSLAND COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

© The State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General). Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Providing a copy to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining professional advice is considered fair use under section 43(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and does not require copyright release. For all other uses, you must not copy, modify or distribute this material without the written authority of the Director, Recording and Transcription Services, Queensland Courts.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
TRESTON J
No 2430 of 2024
CHAUDHARY Applicant
and
FOX Respondent
BRISBANE
11.01 AM, THURSDAY, 20 MARCH 2025
DAY 1
JUDGMENT

Any rulings in this transcript may be extracted and revised by the presiding Judge.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

HER HONOUR: This is an application brought by Robert Kerr for leave to appeal against a costs order. The application proceeds under section 64 of the Supreme Court Act 1991. The costs order in question was one which was made by me on 16 August 2024. Section 64 of the Supreme Court Act 1991 provides, “Leave required to appeal in relation to costs.” Subparagraph (1): “An appeal only in relation to costs lies to the Court of Appeal from a judgment or order of the court in the Trial Division only by leave of the judge who gave the judgment or made the order, or, if that judge is not available, another judge of the court in the Trial Division.”

Before turning to the submissions of either party in relation to leave to appeal in relation to costs, it is important to say something about the legal principles which apply to section 64 which have been considered on a number of occasions, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. In the matter of EPAS Ltd v James & Others [2007] QSC 49, speaking of the precursor of section 64, that is, section 253 of the Supreme Court Act 1995, Justice Wilson observed that the making of an order as to costs involves the exercise of judicial discretion on a procedural question and that leave to appeal against that decision can only be made after leave is obtained from the judge who made the order, or if that judge is not available, then another judge of the trial division.

Justice Wilson went on to observe that the evident purpose of the rule is to limit appeals as to costs…

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 Chaudhary v Fox

Details

AGLC: Chaudhary v Fox [2025] QSC 144
Case: [2025] QSC 144
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Kerr applied for leave to appeal against a costs order made by Treston J in relation to a family provision application. The appeal proceeded under section 64 of the Supreme Court Act 1991, which requires leave to appeal in relation to costs. The legal principles relevant to section 64 were considered, emphasising that leave to appeal against an order for costs is not given as a matter of course and that the applicant must demonstrate a cogent argument against the order. The court considered Mr Kerr's submissions and found that he failed to identify any error of law or fact affecting the costs order, nor did he provide any proper explanation for the significant delay in appealing the costs decision. The court also noted the strongly expressed views of Bond JA in relation to the substantive appeal, which was described as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Given the lack of merit in Mr Kerr's application and the views of Bond JA, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered Mr Kerr to pay the respondent's costs of the application on the standard basis.

Orders