SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Courtney v Chalfen (No 2) [2022] QSC 142
PARTIES:
SIMON CHRISTOPHER COURTNEY
(plaintiff)
v
ELEANOR SOPHIE CHALFEN(defendant)
FILE NO:
2178 of 2020
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
1 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 May 2022 and 26 July 2022
JUDGE:
Dalton J
ORDER:
Refer question back to costs assessor with no directions.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY – COSTS – TAXATION AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT – APPEAL REVIEW OR REFERENCE – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – GENERALLY – where a costs assessor was appointed to assess costs pursuant to a court order – where the costs assessor made directions – where the costs respondent asserted that the directions were not complied with – where the costs assessor invited a request for referral to the court – where the costs respondent requested a referral – where the costs assessor referred a question to the court pursuant to r 717 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the question was as to how the costs assessor ought to exercise his discretion – when a court will determine questions posed on referral from a costs assessor
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 705, 706, 717, 720, 722
CGA Law Pty Ltd & Anor v Diane Lawyers Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QSC 92, cited
Courtney v Chalfen [2020] QCA 294, cited
Courtney v Chalfen [2020] QSC 195, cited
Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, 17 September 2021, Boddice J, citedCOUNSEL:
The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
C Doyle for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the defendant
This was the return date of a referral to the Court by a court-appointed costs assessor, Mr Paul Cameron. Rule 717 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) provides as follows:
“717 Issue or question arising
(1)A costs assessor appointed to carry out a costs assessment may decline to decide any issue or question arising in relation to the assessment that the costs assessor considers should not be decided by the costs assessor.
(2)The costs assessor may refer to the court any issue or question arising in relation to the assessment the costs assessor considers should be decided by the court.
(3)The court may do either or both of the following—
(a)decide the issue or question referred under subrule (2);
(b)refer the issue or question to the costs assessor with or without directions.”
Also relevant here is r 720 which provides:
“720 Procedure on assessment
(1)A costs assessor appointed to carry out a costs assessment is to decide the procedure to be followed on the assessment.
(2)However, the procedure must be—
(a)appropriate to the scope and nature of the dispute and the amount in dispute; and
(b)consistent with the rules of natural justice; and
(c)fair and efficient.
…”
Lastly I refer to r 722:
“722 Assessment…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Courtney v Chalfen (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] QSC 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court required clarification on the role and discretion of a costs assessor in the context of a referral under rule 717 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The key issue was how the court should determine questions posed by a costs assessor when the assessor has referred a matter back to the court, particularly in cases where the assessor seeks guidance on exercising their discretion.
The court found that when a costs assessor refers a question to the court regarding the exercise of their discretion, the court should not provide specific directions to the assessor but rather refer the matter back to them. The court reasoned that the costs assessor is best positioned to make decisions on the exercise of their discretion, and specific directions from the court could unduly constrain the assessor's role. The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining the assessor's independence and authority in their assessment of costs.
The final orders of the court were to refer the question back to the costs assessor with no directions, thereby allowing the assessor to exercise their discretion without specific court intervention.
Orders
Orders of the court
Refer question back to costs assessor with no directions.
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.