Di Carlo v Dubois Summary

[2006] QCA 94

COURT OF APPEAL

JERRARD JA

CA No 9805 of 2001

SALVATORE DI CARLO Plaintiff/Respondent
and
DR PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS First Defendant/

First Applicant

and

PHILIP DUBOIS (MEDICAL) PTY LTD

Second Defendant/

(ACN 010 673 864) Second Applicant
and
DENNIS RICHARD OSBOURNE, Third Defendant/
PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS, Third Applicant
STEPHEN BENNETT KELLER,
PIYOOSH KOTECHA,
GARY EDWARD O'ROURKE,
MARK JAMES READY,

PETER STOREY,

CHARLES BRUCE LEIBOWITZ,
PETER CHARLES LUSH,
MICHAEL DAUNT,
DAVID ALEXANDER NOBLE
AND PETER FERGUS LEIGH
TRADING UNDER THE
FIRM NAME OR STYLE OF

QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES

and
DR MICHAEL CORONEOS Respondent/

Fifth Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/03/2006

JUDGMENT made by consent in an application filed on 16 September 2003 in Appeal Number 9805 of 2001. A copy of the orders made by consent, and signed by the plaintiff who appeared in person and by the counsel for the other parties, namely the first, second and third defendants, has been received by the Registry and will be placed with the file.

I will, however, read the orders made by consent into the record. I will refer to one party as the plaintiff for convenience, and to the other parties as the defendants, they being the first, second and third defendants in the action.

The orders made by consent are that, firstly, the stay ordered by myself on 18 September 2003 be discharged.

Secondly, the costs order in favour of the plaintiff, agreed in the sum of $15,000 be set off against the costs ordered in favour of the first, second and third defendants, by the Court of Appeal on 7 May 2004 in the sum of $16,075.52.

Thirdly, the costs orders in favour of the first, second and defendants the balance sum of $3,918.62.

third defendants made by White J on 25 September 2002 assessed
in the sum of $3,404.39, and the orders made by Mackenzie J on
10 March 2004 assessed in the sum of $3,438.71, be set off
against the plaintiff's costs of the application filed on 16
September 2003 (including reserved costs) which are agreed in
the sum of $4,000.

As stated, those orders will be placed on the Court file.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal was asked to consider an application for consent orders in a case between Salvatore Di Carlo, the plaintiff, and multiple defendants, including Dr Philip James Dubois, Philip Dubois (Medical) Pty Ltd, and Dennis Richard Osborne, among others. The case revolves around an agreement to settle the costs incurred during the litigation process. The plaintiff, who appeared in person, and the counsel for the defendants agreed on the terms of the settlement, including the discharge of a prior stay, the setting off of certain costs orders against others, and the finalisation of specific costs agreements. This case highlights the court's role in facilitating settlements and the practicalities of managing litigation costs through consent orders.

The legal issues at hand centred around the enforcement of the agreed terms of settlement, particularly in relation to the discharge of a previous stay order, the setting off of costs, and the finalisation of costs orders. The court was required to consider whether the consent orders were in the interests of justice and whether they appropriately reflected the agreement between the parties. This involved ensuring that the orders were clear, comprehensive, and enforceable, while also taking into account the practicalities of managing litigation costs.

The court accepted the consent orders as they were in line with the agreement between the parties. The orders were detailed and specific, addressing the discharge of a prior stay, the setting off of various costs orders against each other, and the finalisation of costs agreements. The court noted that the plaintiff and the defendants had reached a comprehensive agreement, which was fair and just. The court's role was to ensure that the terms of the agreement were properly documented and enforceable. By confirming the consent orders, the court facilitated the finalisation of the litigation in a manner that was efficient and fair to all parties involved.

The final orders included the discharge of the prior stay, the setting off of certain costs orders against others, and the finalisation of specific costs agreements. These orders were agreed upon by the plaintiff and the defendants, reflecting their compromise on the costs incurred during the litigation. The court's approval of the consent orders ensured that the terms of the settlement were legally binding and enforceable, bringing the litigation to a close in a manner that was satisfactory to all parties involved.

Di Carlo v Dubois

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established