Collett v Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd t/a Easy T Retail Centre - [2009] QDC 117

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Collett v Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd t/a Easy T Retail Centre & Ors [2009] QDC 117

PARTIES:

DIANE COLLETT

(Applicant)

AND

ROBINA PROJECTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD T/A EASY T RETAIL CENTRE

(First Respondent)

AND

BROAD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (QLD) PTY LTD

(Second Respondent)

AND

COTTEE PARKER ARCHITECTS PTY LTD

(Third Respondent)

AND

CERTIS GOLD COAST PTY LTD

(Fourth Respondent)

AND

LG FORMWORK PTY LIMITED

(Fifth Respondent)

AND

ULTRA TILING QUEENSLAND

(Sixth Respondent)

AND

BLUE CHIP CONCRETE SERVICES PTY LTD

(Seventh Respondent)

AND

CORPORATE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

(Eighth Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD269/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 April 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Final written submissions on costs received on 27 March 2009

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

The Applicant pay the costs of and incidental to these proceedings of the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, the Fourth Respondent, the Fifth Respondent, the Sixth Respondent, the Seventh Respondent, and the Eighth Respondent as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – General Rule – costs follow the event

COSTS – Whether to order that costs be paid within a nominated time

PRATICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether to correct an aspect of original judgment – where correction related to interpretation of a file note which was a substantive aspect of the judgement – where the ultimate decision was not affected by the original interpretation

Walden v Council of the City of Townsville [2004] QDC 23 considered

R v Topou; ex parte A-G [2004] QCA 179

UCPR rr 681, 660(2), 661(4), 681, 740

COUNSEL:

Mr RJ Oliver for the applicant

Mr KF Holyoak for the respondents (except for the third respondent against whom the application did not proceed)

SOLICITORS:

Shane Ellis Lawyers for the applicant

Barry & Nilsson for the respondents (except for the third respondent)

Costs

When I gave judgment in this matter on 13 March 2009 dismissing the application[1] I was requested by the parties not to make a final costs order at that time, but to receive written submissions on the issue.
[1][2009] QDC 53.

At the time of the request the parties were aware that I had contemplated an order that the Applicant pay the Respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application on the standard basis. However, I acceded to this request.

Each party has filed two written submissions on the issue. In the submissions filed on 20 March 2008 the parties agreed that the costs of the proceedings ought to follow the event in accordance with the general rule, now expressed in UCPR r 681.

However, the submissions raised additional issues for consideration.

Mr Holyoak, counsel for the Respondents (except for the Third Respondent against whom the application did not proceed) sought the following orders:

“1.The Applicant pay the costs of and incidental to these proceedings of the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, the Fourth Respondent, the Fifth Respondent, the Sixth Respondent, the Seventh Respondent, and the Eighth Respondent to…

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 Collett v Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd t/a Easy T Retai...

Details

AGLC: Collett v Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd t/a Easy T Retail Centre [2009] QDC 117
Case: [2009] QDC 117
Decision Date: 11 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collett, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Easy T Retail Centre, and others, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The case centred on allegations of breaches of contract, misrepresentation, and other related claims arising from a dispute concerning a retail space within the Easy T Retail Centre. The plaintiff sought damages and other remedies for the alleged breaches.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the court should order that costs be paid within a nominated time and whether it was appropriate to correct an aspect of the original judgment. The court was particularly focused on whether a correction to an interpretation of a file note, which was a substantive part of the judgment, was warranted given that the ultimate decision was not affected by the original interpretation. The court had to weigh the necessity of ensuring procedural fairness against the principle of finality in judgments.

In its judgment, the court determined that the costs of the proceedings should follow the general rule, meaning that the losing party was to bear the costs. The court further considered that ordering costs to be paid within a nominated time was appropriate to ensure expeditious resolution of financial matters. Regarding the correction of the original judgment, the court concluded that while the interpretation of the file note was indeed a substantive aspect of the judgment, the ultimate decision was not influenced by this interpretation. Therefore, the court decided against correcting the original judgment, upholding the principle of finality in judicial decisions.

The court ordered that Collett was to pay the costs of and incidental to these proceedings of the various respondents as agreed or assessed on the standard basis. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the established principles of costs and the careful consideration of procedural fairness and finality in judicial corrections.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Applicant pay the costs of and incidental to these proceedings of the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, the Fourth Respondent, the Fifth Respondent, the Sixth Respondent, the Seventh Respondent, and the Eighth Respondent as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Collett v Robina Projects Australia Pty Ltd t/a Easy T Retail Centre & Ors [2009] QDC 117
PARTIES:	DIANE COLLETT (Applicant) AND ROBINA PROJECTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD T/A EASY T RETAIL CENTRE (First Respondent) AND BROAD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (QLD) PTY LTD (Second Respondent) AND COTTEE PARKER ARCHITECTS PTY LTD (Third Respondent) AND CERTIS GOLD COAST PTY LTD (Fourth Respondent) AND LG FORMWORK PTY LIMITED (Fifth Respondent) AND ULTRA TILING QUEENSLAND (Sixth Respondent) AND BLUE CHIP CONCRETE SERVICES PTY LTD (Seventh Respondent) AND CORPORATE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (Eighth Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD269/09
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 April 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Final written submissions on costs received on 27 March 2009
JUDGE:	Irwin DCJ
ORDER:	The Applicant pay the costs of and incidental to these proceedings of the First Respondent, the Second Respondent, the Fourth Respondent, the Fifth Respondent, the Sixth Respondent, the Seventh Respondent, and the Eighth Respondent as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS – General Rule – costs follow the event COSTS – Whether to order that costs be paid within a nominated time PRATICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether to correct an aspect of original judgment – where correction related to interpretation of a file note which was a substantive aspect of the judgement – where the ultimate decision was not affected by the original interpretation Walden v Council of the City of Townsville [2004] QDC 23 considered R v Topou; ex parte A-G [2004] QCA 179 UCPR rr 681, 660(2), 661(4), 681, 740
COUNSEL:	Mr RJ Oliver for the applicant Mr KF Holyoak for the respondents (except for the third respondent against whom the application did not proceed)
SOLICITORS:	Shane Ellis Lawyers for the applicant Barry & Nilsson for the respondents (except for the third respondent)