Courtney v Chalfen

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25

PARTIES:

SIMON CHRISTOPHER COURTNEY
(appellant)
v
ELEANOR SOPHIE CHALFEN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7938 of 2020
SC No 2178 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2020] QSC 195 (Williams J)

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 November 2020

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides and Mullins JJA

ORDERS:

1.   On Appeal No 7938 of 2020, the appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis.

2.   On the application filed on 27 July 2020, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS – OTHER MATTERS – whether separately determined issues dealt with in the principal judgment should be treated as an “event” – whether an order was a final order for the purpose of costs – whether conduct was sufficient to warrant an order for costs on an indemnity basis

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 126, r 684

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
N H Ferrett QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the respondent

  1. MORRISON JA:  On 18 December 2020 the Court delivered its reasons for striking out the appellant’s application filed on 27 July 2020, and dismissing his appeal.[1]  The question of costs on each of the appeal and application was not dealt with at that time as the respondent had sought to be heard on that issue.  As a consequence, the parties were directed to file submissions on the question of costs of the appeal and application.  They have done so and those issues can now be resolved.

    Costs of the appeal

  2. The respondent proposes merely that the costs of the appeal should follow the event, and on the standard basis.  Prima facie, that would normally be the outcome given that the appeal failed.  However, the appellant contends that each of what he contends were separately determined issues dealt with in the principal judgment should be treated as an “event” for the purposes of determining where the costs should lie.

  3. In my view, that approach is misconceived.

  4. The general rule is that costs follow the event and that should only be departed upon in the event of special or exceptional circumstances.[2]  The underlying rationale of that approach is that costs are not awarded to punish an unsuccessful party, but as a means of indemnifying the successful party.[3]

  5. This Court has endorsed the principles that: (i) ordinarily costs follow the event; (ii) costs can be awarded under r 684 UCPR on discrete issues if they are definable and severable and they occupied a substantial proportion of the trial or hearing;[4] (ii) there must be special or exceptional circumstances…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Courtney v Chalfen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] QCA 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Courtney v Chalfen involved an appeal against a costs order made by the respondent. The dispute arose out of civil proceedings in an Australian state court, with the appellant seeking to challenge the costs order on the grounds that certain issues were improperly dealt with and that the order was not a final order for the purposes of costs. The respondent argued that the costs order was appropriate and should be upheld.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether separately determined issues should be treated as an “event” for the purposes of determining costs, whether the order made was a final order, and whether the appellant's conduct warranted an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The court had to carefully consider the nature of the costs order and the conduct of the parties to determine the appropriate costs regime.

The court found that the separately determined issues were indeed an “event” for the purposes of costs and that the order was not a final order. However, the court also found that the appellant's conduct warranted an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The court considered the appellant's conduct to be vexatious and oppressive, leading to the imposition of costs on an indemnity basis. The court held that the respondent was entitled to the costs of the appeal and the application on the standard and indemnity basis, respectively.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant was to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis and that the applicant was to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the indemnity basis. This decision highlights the importance of considering the nature of costs orders and the conduct of parties in determining the appropriate costs regime.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On Appeal No 7938 of 2020, the appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis.

2. On the application filed on 27 July 2020, the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed on the indemnity 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.