Di Carlo v Dubois
Case
•
[2002] QCA 225
•25 June 2002
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225
[2002] QCA 225
25 June 2002
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Di Carlo v Dubois involved a dispute where the appellant sought leave to amend the statement of claim at trial. The respondents argued that the amendment set up an alternative case, creating a conflict of interest between two of the defendants who were represented by the same counsel and solicitors and insured by the same professional indemnity insurer. The trial judge granted the amendment and ordered the appellant to pay the costs thrown away by the amendment on an indemnity basis. Subsequently, the trial judge granted an adjournment, discharged the jury, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the four days of trial thrown away, also on an indemnity basis. The appellant challenged these orders on the basis that the trial judge erred in not reserving the costs to the judge who would hear the second trial and in ordering that the costs be assessed on an indemnity basis.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay the costs thrown away by the amendment on an indemnity basis and in ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the four days of trial thrown away on an indemnity basis. The court considered the relevant rules of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and relevant authorities, including Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd and Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd. The court found that the trial judge erred in ordering that the costs be assessed on an indemnity basis and in not reserving those costs to the judge who hears the second trial.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders as to costs made below. In lieu thereof, the court ordered that the appellant pay the defendants’ costs incurred in consequence of the amendment to the statement of claim and that the costs of the four days of trial be reserved to the judge who hears the new trial of the action. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay the costs thrown away by the amendment on an indemnity basis and in ordering the appellant to pay the costs of the four days of trial thrown away on an indemnity basis. The court considered the relevant rules of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and relevant authorities, including Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd and Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd. The court found that the trial judge erred in ordering that the costs be assessed on an indemnity basis and in not reserving those costs to the judge who hears the second trial.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders as to costs made below. In lieu thereof, the court ordered that the appellant pay the defendants’ costs incurred in consequence of the amendment to the statement of claim and that the costs of the four days of trial be reserved to the judge who hears the new trial of the action. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225
Most Recent Citation
Khoury v Kooij [2025] QCA 134
Cases Citing This Decision
310
Stinson & Goldsmith
[2020] FamCA 1115
BLANCO & BLANCO (No.2)
[2019] FCCA 2458
Palmer v Gibson (No 2)
[2025] QSC 187
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
1
Astley v AusTrust Ltd
[1999] HCA 6
Astley v AusTrust Ltd
[1999] HCA 6
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty ltd
[1993] FCA 801
Cited Sections