CQ Field Mining Services Pty Ltd v Deguara

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

CQ Field Mining Services Pty Ltd v Deguara [2022] QDC 76  

PARTIES:

CQ FIELD MINING SERVICES PTY LTD

(appellant)

v

WAYNE MICHAEL DEGUARA

(respondent)

FILE NO:

D49/21

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal – Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Determined on the papers

JUDGE:

Loury QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.      The respondent pay the appellant’s costs;

2. The respondent is granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the appellant was successful on appeal – whether costs follow the event and be granted on the standard basis or the appellant pay the respondent’s costs – whether the respondent should pay the appellant’s costs – where there was an error of law by the learned Magistrate – whether the appellant’s success was based on point of law not argued in Magistrates Court – whether the appellant’s success based on evidence not presented – whether the appellant already paid for an indulgence – whether the respondent should be granted an indemnity certificate

LEGISLATION:

Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) s 15(2)

CASES:

Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25

Adeva Home Solutions Pty Ltd v Queensland Motorways Management Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 198

Vella v Larson [1982] Qd R 298

COUNSEL:

S McLennan for the appellant

M De Waard for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McKays Solicitors for the appellant

Kelly Legal for the respondent

Background

  1. In CQ Field Mining Services Pty Ltd v Deguara [2022] QDC 42 I gave judgment in favour of CQ Field Mining Services Pty Ltd, setting aside orders made in the Magistrates Court and giving the appellant leave to withdraw deemed admissions and extending time within which to file a second amended reply to 9 July 2021. I indicated that I would hear the parties as to costs. I have received written submissions from each party, both seeking the payment of their costs.

  2. The appellant submits the respondent should pay its costs of the appeal and that there is nothing special or exceptional in the circumstances to warrant departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.

  3. The respondent is seeking the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal or that they be the defendant’s costs in the proceeding. In the alternative, the respondent seeks an indemnity certificate be granted to him.

  4. The general rule is that costs follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise.[1]  In Courtney v Chalfen[2] Morrison JA said that the general rule that costs follow the event should only be departed from in the event of special or exceptional circumstances, the rationale for that being that costs are not awarded to punish a party but as a means of indemnifying the successful party.

    [1]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681(1).

    [2] [2021] QCA 25 [4].

  5. The…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CQ Field Mining Services Pty Ltd v Deguara 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
[2022] QDC 76
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of CQ Field Mining Services Pty Ltd v Deguara, the appellant, CQ Field Mining Services, successfully appealed a decision made by the respondent, Deguara, in the Magistrates Court. The dispute centred on the allocation of costs between the parties following the appeal. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant sought to have the respondent pay the costs of the appeal, while the respondent argued that the appellant should bear its own costs.

The legal issues before the court were whether the costs should follow the event and be awarded on the standard basis, or whether the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs instead. Additionally, the court considered whether the appellant's success was based on a point of law that was not argued in the Magistrates Court, and whether the appellant's success was due to evidence that was not presented. The court also examined whether the appellant had already paid for an indulgence and whether the respondent should be granted an indemnity certificate.

The court found that the appellant's success was based on a point of law that was not argued in the Magistrates Court, and that the appellant's success was not due to evidence that was not presented. The court concluded that the appellant had already paid for an indulgence, and as such, the respondent should pay the appellant's costs. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent should be granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to section 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

In light of the above, the court made two orders. Firstly, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs. Secondly, the respondent was granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to section 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs;

2. The respondent is granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

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.