Compadres Aust v Waterfront Place No2

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Compadres Australia Pty Ltd sought to restrain Waterfront Place No.2 Pty Ltd, Waterfront Place No.3 Pty Ltd, and Hannaslea Nominees Pty Ltd from restricting access to its premises. The plaintiff alleged that the first and second defendants had granted a licence to the third defendant, allowing the latter to place tables, chairs, and pot plants on a walkway, thereby reducing the width of the walkway from 3.9m to 1.2m. This, the plaintiff claimed, caused a decrease in sales and patronage. The court was required to decide whether the proceedings had become unnecessary and, if so, who should bear the costs. The court considered whether the proceedings had become unnecessary due to the liquor licence held by the third defendant, which prevented serving liquor on the balcony. The court held that the proceedings had not become unnecessary as the issue of the lease terms remained unresolved. The court also considered the reasonableness of the plaintiff's actions in commencing the proceedings and the defendants' actions in opposing them. The court decided that each party should bear its own costs, except for the costs of the summons, where the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first and second defendants' costs.