Collins v Carey - [2002] QSC 417

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Collins v Carey & Anor [2002] QSC 417

PARTIES:

LANCE STANLEY COLLINS
(plaintiff)
v
PAULA J CAREY and GREGORY J CAREY
(first defendants)
GRACE WORLDWIDE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S 11531 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered on 3 December 2002

Further Order delivered 12 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 December 2002

JUDGE:

Philippides J

FURTHER ORDER:

That the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis on the District Court scale where the amount recovered exceeds $50,000.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – SCALE – where plaintiff succeeded in personal injuries action – where amount awarded within monetary jurisdiction of District Court – whether costs should be on Supreme or District Court scale

COSTS – OFFERS TO SETTLE – where plaintiff had offered to settle on liability – where plaintiff succeeded on statement of claim amended at outset of trial – where costs to follow event – whether costs should be on indemnity or standard basis

COSTS – DISCRETION – whether solicitors’ costs should be increased by 30% – whether certification for two counsel should be made – whether costs should be reduced because plaintiff failed on certain issues

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 360(1),
r 360(2), r 690(5), r 698, r 698(1), r 698(3)

Cameron v Nominal Defendant [2000] QCA 137, 18 April 2002
Charter Pacific Corporation Ltd v Belrida Enterprises Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 319, 17 October 2002
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4
Davies v Fay [1995] 1 Qd R 509
Forster v Farquhar [1893] 1 QB 564
Nielson Investments (Qld) P/L & Ors v Spud Mulligan’s P/L & Ors [2002] QSC 295, 27 September 2002
Sweeney v Attwood Marshall [2002] QSC 294, 27 September 2002

Walz Construction Co P/L v ASP Ship Management (A Firm) & Ors; Qld Alumina Ltd v Walz Construction Co P/L & Ors; Walz Construction Co P/L v Suncorp Insurance & Finance [2002] QCA 155, 3 May 2002

COUNSEL:

R Lilley for the plaintiff
P Hackett for the first defendants

J Rolls and A Kitchen for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiff
HBM Lawyers for the first defendants

Phillips Fox for the second defendant

PHILIPPIDES J: Judgement was given in the plaintiff’s favour on his claim for damages for personal injuries, with the plaintiff being awarded $103,311.05 (after deduction of the WorkCover refund of $26,751). The issue of costs now falls for determination. There are a number of issues that require consideration:

(a) whether costs should be ordered on the District Court or Supreme Court scale;

(b) whether costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis in respect of the issue of liability, in view of an offer to settle made by the plaintiff on 22 August 2002;

(c) whether a certificate for an increase of solicitors’ costs should be made…

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 Collins v Carey

Details

AGLC: Collins v Carey [2002] QSC 417
Case: [2002] QSC 417
Decision Date: 3 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Collins v Carey, the plaintiff, Collins, sought compensation for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The defendant, Carey, was found liable for the accident. The dispute before the court was primarily concerned with the appropriate scale for assessing costs in a personal injury case where the plaintiff's damages were within the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court. The plaintiff argued for costs on the Supreme Court scale, while the defendant contended for the District Court scale.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate cost scale, assessing whether costs should be calculated on an indemnity or standard basis given the plaintiff's offer to settle on liability, and exercising the court's discretion regarding the quantum of costs. The court needed to consider whether the plaintiff's costs should be increased by 30% and whether certification for two counsel should be made. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the plaintiff's failure on certain issues warranted a reduction in costs.

The court ruled that the appropriate scale for assessing costs was the District Court scale, given that the amount awarded fell within the monetary jurisdiction of that court. The court also determined that costs should be assessed on a standard basis, as the plaintiff had succeeded on the amended statement of claim. The court exercised its discretion to increase the plaintiff's costs by 30%, finding it appropriate in the circumstances. Certification for two counsel was granted, and the court found no justification to reduce the costs due to the plaintiff's failure on certain issues. The final orders included the assessment of costs on the District Court scale, with a 30% increase and certification for two counsel.

Orders