Curtis, Coolee and Palmshell P/L v Veverka - [2002] QSC 297

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Curtis, Coolee and Palmshell P/L v Veverka & Ors [2002] QSC 297

PARTIES:

JOHN DAVID CURTIS, PAUL EDWARD COOLEE AND PALMSHELL PTY LTD (ACN 089 351 646)
(applicants)
v
MICHAEL VEVERKA
(first respondent)
ALLAN SPENCE PHILIPS
(second respondent)
JUMBO CORPORATION LTD (ACN 009 189 128)
(third respondent)

FILE NO:

S8311 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30-31 May 2002

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDER:

That the applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the hearing to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – RESERVED COSTS

Corporations Act 2001 s 232
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 689

Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries [1951] 1 All ER 873
Colgate-Palmolive K v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Milne v Attorney-General (Tas) (1956) 95 CLR 460
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1988) 193 CLR 72
Verna Trading v New India Assurance [1991] 1 VR 129
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47

COUNSEL:

G Beacham for the applicants
P E Hack SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Macrossans Lawyers for the applicants
Shand Taylor for the respondents

When giving reasons for judgment in this matter I acceded to an application by the respondents’ counsel that the parties be permitted to deliver written submissions on costs. These reasons address the parties’ submissions.

Practices or guidelines have developed in courts of general jurisdiction concerning the exercise of discretion regarding costs. In Oshlack v Richmond River Council[1] it was said that there is “a general rule that a wholly successful defendant should receive his costs unless good reason is shown to the contrary”.[2]
[1](1988) 193 CLR 72 at 86, per Gaudron and Gummow JJ.
[2]Milne v Attorney-General (Tas) (1956) 95 CLR 460 at 477.

That rule or concept is enshrined in Rule 689 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which provides –

“(1) Costs of a proceeding are in the discretion of the court but follow the event, unless the court considers another order is more appropriate.”

McHugh J, with whose reasons Brennan CJ expressed general agreement, said in Oshlack:[3]

“By far the most important factor which courts have viewed as guiding the exercise of the costs discretion is the result of the litigation. A successful litigant is generally entitled to an award of costs.”

[3]At 96.

At p 97 his Honour went on to explain the rationale for such a principle, saying:

“The principle is grounded in reasons of fairness and policy and operates whether the successful party is the plaintiff or the defendant. Costs are not awarded to punish an unsuccessful party. The primary purpose of an award of costs is to indemnify the successful party. (Latoudis (1990) 170 CLR 534 at 543, per Mason CJ; at 562-563, per Toohey J; at 566-567, per McHugh J; Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 410, per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson and McHugh JJ.) If…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Curtis, Coolee and Palmshell P/L v Veverka 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: [2002] QSC 297
Decision Date: 27 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Curtis, Coolee and Palmshell P/L v Veverka involved a dispute where the applicants sought to enforce a reserved costs order against the respondents. The applicants, Curtis, Coolee and Palmshell P/L, sought costs following the hearing of an application. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to the reserved costs as outlined in the orders of the court. The applicants argued that they were entitled to the reserved costs as per the terms of the orders made by the court. The respondents, Veverka, contended that the applicants were not entitled to the reserved costs.

The court considered the terms of the orders and the submissions made by both parties. The court found that the orders did not explicitly reserve costs in favour of the applicants. The court held that the applicants were not entitled to the reserved costs as per the terms of the orders made. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicants must pay the respondents' costs of the hearing, which were to be assessed on the standard basis. This decision was based on the interpretation of the orders and the lack of explicit reservation of costs in favour of the applicants.

The final orders of the court were that the applicants, Curtis, Coolee and Palmshell P/L, must pay the respondents' costs of the hearing to be assessed on the standard basis. This ruling was based on the court's interpretation of the orders and the absence of a specific reservation of costs in favour of the applicants. The court's decision provided clarity on the entitlement to costs in such circumstances and affirmed the importance of explicit terms in court orders regarding reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the hearing to be assessed on the standard 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.

CITATION:	Curtis, Coolee and Palmshell P/L v Veverka & Ors [2002] QSC 297
PARTIES:	JOHN DAVID CURTIS, PAUL EDWARD COOLEE AND PALMSHELL PTY LTD (ACN 089 351 646) (applicants) v MICHAEL VEVERKA (first respondent) ALLAN SPENCE PHILIPS (second respondent) JUMBO CORPORATION LTD (ACN 009 189 128) (third respondent)
FILE NO:	S8311 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30-31 May 2002
JUDGE:	Muir J
ORDER:	That the applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the hearing to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS – RESERVED COSTS Corporations Act 2001 s 232 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 689 Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries [1951] 1 All ER 873 Colgate-Palmolive K v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Milne v Attorney-General (Tas) (1956) 95 CLR 460 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1988) 193 CLR 72 Verna Trading v New India Assurance [1991] 1 VR 129 Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
COUNSEL:	G Beacham for the applicants P E Hack SC for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Macrossans Lawyers for the applicants Shand Taylor for the respondents