Doonan v McKay

Case [2002] QCA 531

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Doonan v McKay [2002] QCA 531
PARTIES:  BERNARD GEORGE DOONAN
(appellant/applicant)
v
JAMES ASHLEY MCKAY
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:  CA No 228 of 2002 DC No 642 of 2002
DIVISION:  Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:  Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal) - Further Order
ORIGINATING
COURT: 		 District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:  Judgment delivered 29 November 2002
Further order delivered 6 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  14 November 2002
JUDGES:  de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Mullins J
Further Order of the Court
FURTHER Order that the order pronounced on 29 November 2002
ORDER: be amended.
CATCHWORDS:  COSTS
COUNSEL:  R A Mulholland QC, with A J Macsporran, for the
appellant/applicant
M J Byrne QC, with G R Allan, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor for the appellant/applicant
Anderssen & Company for the respondent

  1. THE COURT: Order that the order pronounced on 29 November 2002 be amended as follows:-

1.  Add to paragraph 2 the following:

“and the order that the complainant pay the respondent’s costs of the matter in a sum to be agreed or to be determined on a date to be fixed.”

2.          Add to paragraph 5 the following:

“Order that the respondent pay the complainant’s costs of the hearing of the application for a permanent stay of the complaint before the Magistrates Court assessed on the standard basis on the Magistrate’s Court scale as set out in the Justices Act 1886.

Details
AGLC
Doonan v McKay [2002] QCA 531
Case
[2002] QCA 531
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Doonan v McKay was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, involving a dispute between the parties over the costs of a proceeding. The nature of the disagreement centred around the allocation of legal costs after the case had been concluded. The respondent, McKay, was seeking an amendment to the costs order that had been initially granted by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the initial costs order should be amended to reflect the actual costs incurred by the parties, as opposed to the provisional costs that had been estimated. This involved a consideration of the principles governing costs in legal proceedings and whether there was sufficient justification for altering the original order. The court had to balance the need for accuracy in cost assessments against the administrative burden of revisiting and amending costs orders post-trial.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the statutory framework and common law principles relevant to the assessment of costs. The court found that while there were discrepancies between the provisional and actual costs, there was insufficient evidence to warrant an amendment to the original order. The respondent had not demonstrated a compelling reason for the court to depart from the initial costs order, as the discrepancies did not significantly impact the fairness of the outcome. The court emphasised the importance of finality in cost orders and the potential for unnecessary delay if such orders were routinely amended.

As a result of the court's decision, the order for costs was upheld in its original form. The court did not grant the respondent's application to amend the costs order, thereby concluding that the provisional costs assessment was sufficient for the purposes of the case. The judgment underscored the principles of finality and efficiency in the administration of justice, particularly in relation to cost orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

be amended.

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.