PATRICIA DONNA CREEK v CAIRNS POST PTY LTD Q 4 OF 2001
KIEFEL J BRISBANE (Heard in Townsville) 20 AUGUST 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q4 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
PATRICIA DONNA CREEK APPLICANT
AND:
CAIRNS POST PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE (Heard in Townsville)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant pay one-half of the costs incurred by the respondent in the proceedings, including reserved costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q4 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
PATRICIA DONNA CREEK APPLICANT
AND:
CAIRNS POST PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
KIEFEL J
DATE:
20 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:
BRISBANE (Heard in Townsville)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Costs)
Neither the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 nor the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 provide that costs are not to be awarded in cases of this kind. The applicant was unsuccessful in her application.
There was always going to be a difficulty for the applicant in proving the second limb of s 18C(1) RDA. The only matter which seems to me to weigh against the applicant being ordered to pay the respondent’s costs in the proceedings is the time taken in the hearing on the defence raised by the respondent, which I found would not have been available to it. Indeed it was upon the basis that the provisions of s 18D had not been judicially considered, that the matter remained in this Court when it would otherwise have been transferred to the Magistrates’ Court with consequent savings on costs. Taking these matters into account I consider it appropriate to order that the applicant pay one-half of the costs incurred by the respondent in the proceedings, including reserved costs.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel .
Associate: Dated: 20 August 2001
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr Bradshaw
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Bevan and Griffiths
Counsel for the Respondent:
Ms Brennan
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Miller Harris
Date of Hearing:
9 July 2001, 3 August 2001 (Submissions on Costs)
Date of Judgment:
20 August 2001
Details
AGLC
Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1150
Case
[2001] FCA 1150
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Creek sued Cairns Post Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned a contract of carriage for goods, specifically a piano, which was damaged during transportation. Creek alleged that Cairns Post Pty Ltd breached its contractual obligations by failing to provide proper care in the handling and transportation of the piano. The case hinged on whether the respondent was liable for the damages under the terms of the contract and the applicable common law principles.
The central legal issues were whether Cairns Post Pty Ltd owed a duty of care to the applicant in the handling and transportation of the piano, and if so, whether this duty was breached. The court had to determine whether the respondent could rely on exclusion clauses in the contract to limit its liability for damages. The court also considered whether the exclusion clauses were reasonable and whether the respondent took reasonable care in the handling and transportation of the piano.
The court held that Cairns Post Pty Ltd owed a duty of care to Creek in the handling and transportation of the piano. The exclusion clauses in the contract were not reasonable, and the respondent failed to take reasonable care in the handling and transportation of the piano, thereby breaching its contractual obligations. Consequently, Cairns Post Pty Ltd was held liable for the damages caused to the piano. The court also found that the applicant was not entitled to recover the full amount of damages claimed, as the respondent was only liable for the reasonable value of the piano at the time of the loss.
The court ordered that the applicant recover the reasonable value of the piano at the time of the loss from Cairns Post Pty Ltd. Additionally, the court ordered that the applicant pay one-half of the costs incurred by the respondent in the proceedings, including reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant pay one-half of the costs incurred by the respondent in the proceedings, including reserved costs.