Date of Judgment: 10 September 2024

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
STEWARD J
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL APPELLANT
AND
EDWARD AMOS RESPONDENT
[2024] HCASJ 35
Date of Judgment: 10 September 2024
B47 of 2018
ORDER
1.Application for leave to file the proposed bill of costs dated 22 April 2024 be granted.

Representation
The appellant is represented by City Legal
The respondent is unrepresented

STEWARD J. The respondent, Mr Amos, seeks leave to file a bill of costs. The respondent relies on an affidavit sworn by him on 22 April 2024.
The proceedings to which the proposed bill of costs relate concern an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland,[1] which had concluded that s 26(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) does not extend or exclude the operation of s 10(1) of that Act, to the effect that a defendant is entitled to plead the shorter limitation period under s 10(1) where those limitation periods overlap.
[1]Amos v Brisbane City Council [2018] QCA 11.
On 4 September 2019, this Court made orders that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant (the Council) pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.[2]
[2]Brisbane City Council v Amos (2019) 266 CLR 593.
No document has been filed or any step taken in the proceedings since this Court handed down its judgment and orders on 4 September 2019.
Rule 4.03.02 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) states that where 3 years or more have elapsed since any party has taken any step in a proceeding, no step shall be taken in the proceeding without the leave of the Court or a Justice.
Mr Amos now seeks leave to file a bill of costs.
On 22 April 2024, Mr Amos prepared an application for leave to file a bill of costs in the proceedings. That application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Amos on the same date. The application and supporting affidavit were filed with the Registry on 24 June 2024.
By a Notice of Intention to Act in Person, Mr Amos has indicated that he intends to act in this matter in the place of his former solicitors, Keller Nall & Brown.
On 10 July 2024, Mr Amos swore an affidavit of service, in which he deposed that he had served the Council with sealed copies of the Notice of Intention to Act in Person, the application and the supporting affidavit on 8 July 2024.
The Council has not opposed the application.
Mr Amos is 83 years old, and deposes to his health and mobility issues, which he indicates have frustrated his ability to conduct his affairs, including in relation to these proceedings. His evidence is that while he took steps in early 2020 to arrange for the bill of costs to be prepared, he was delayed in doing so by his limited contact with his solicitor during the COVID-19 pandemic. The preparation of the bill of costs was further delayed when Mr Amos contracted pneumonia in 2023.
Mr Amos also deposed that he and his solicitor prioritised the preparation of the bill of costs in relation to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal before preparing the bill of costs in relation to the proceedings in this Court.
The application is not opposed by the Council. Nor has the Council suffered any prejudice by the delay in filing the bill of costs. It is appropriate that leave be granted to file the bill of costs.
I direct that the application for leave to file the bill of costs dated 22 April 2024 be granted.

The proceedings were brought by the plaintiff, who sought relief against the defendant due to alleged breaches of contract. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Smith. The plaintiff, who was a contractor engaged by the defendant for a construction project, claimed that the defendant had failed to make payments as required under the terms of their agreement. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had not fulfilled their obligations under the contract, thereby justifying the withholding of payment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was entitled to withhold payment from the plaintiff under the terms of their contract. This involved a detailed examination of the contractual terms, the performance of the obligations by both parties, and the interpretation of relevant clauses. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted a breach that would justify the defendant's actions.

Justice Smith, after reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, concluded that the plaintiff had indeed fulfilled their contractual obligations to the satisfaction of the requirements set out in the contract. The court found that the defendant's withholding of payment was not justified under the terms of the agreement. The judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the payments claimed, as the defendant's reasons for withholding payment were not supported by the contractual terms or the performance of the contract. The application for leave to file the proposed bill of costs was also granted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established