CJG v TG

[2022] QDC 48

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CJG v TG [2022] QDC 48

PARTIES:

CJG

(Appellant)

v

TG

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

D437/21

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Jackson QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – COSTS OF APPEAL – INDEMNITY COSTS – Where the application for a stay pending the hearing of the appeal was dismissed – Where the appellant purported to discontinue the appeal – Where the parties were given leave to make submissions as to costs – Where the appellant’s position was that costs do not follow the event per s 157 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 – Where the respondent seeks indemnity costs – Whether costs should be awarded.

LEGISLATION:

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

CASES:

AKM v CJM [2021] QDC 199
BAK v Gallagher & Anor (No. 2) [2018] QDC 132
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248
HZA v ZHA [2018] QDC 125
MNT v MEE (No 2) [2020] QDC 100
Urquhart v Partington [2016] QCA 199

COUNSEL:

The appellant is self-represented

N Laing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant is self-represented

Pullos Lawyers for the respondent

Background

1. On 28 January 2020, I ordered that CJG’s application for a stay pending the hearing of his appeal filed 14 December 2021 be dismissed and reserved the costs of that application. I also indicated that, in the event that either party sought a determination on the issue of costs, the parties were to file a written outline of argument limited to four pages. The parties have each done so. While there is some debate in the correspondence about whether or not the parties have limited themselves to four pages, the outlines, as opposed to the affidavit material, do not exceed 4 pages. I have had regard to all of the material. In addition, following having identified a preliminary view that rule 304 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) had no application to the matter, further written submissions were provided on 10 March 2022.

2. Following my order dismissing the application for a stay, the appellant filed a Notice of Discontinuance purportedly under rule 304 of the UCPR. He had indicated at the hearing that he proposed to do so.

The parties’ original submissions

1. The appellant relies on s 157 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act2012 (the Act). He says that there should be no order as to costs because the matters set out in s 157(2) of the Act have not been satisfied. He relies upon AKM v CJM[1] at [79] and BAK v Gallagher & Anor (No. 2)[2] at [9] in this respect.

   [1][2021] QDC 199.

   [2][2018] QDC 132.

2. However, as is clear from AKM at [80] and