Duffy v Hepron Pty Ltd

[2007] QSC 106

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Duffy v Hepron Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 106

PARTIES:

CRAIG FRANCIS DUFFY
(applicant)
v
HEPRON PTY LTD
ACN 063 537 253
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS8921 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written Submissions

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1.   Interest on the judgement be awarded in the amount of $16,404.79

2.   The applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION FOR INTEREST ON JUDGEMENT SUM

APPLICATION FOR COSTS-INDEMNITY COSTS-where respondent offers to settle proceedings-where applicant refuses offer and recovers less than offer at trial-whether Uniform Civil Procedure Rule (Qld) r 360 applies to respondent-whether respondent entitled to award of costs on the indemnity basis.

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s47
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r360

COUNSEL:

Ms K T Magee for the applicant
Mr G Beacham for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McGregor O’Reilly for the applicant
Robbins Watson for the respondent

1. On 11 April 2007 I gave judgment for the respondent entitling it to recover from the applicant the sum of $221,775.79.  With one exception the components of the respondent’s claim for damages were agreed.  I disallowed the one item in contention.

1. The relevant components were: (i) $77,113.93 being the difference between the proceeds of sale the respondent would have recovered pursuant to its contract with the applicant, had that contract proceeded to settlement, and the net proceeds recovered by the respondent from the subsequent sales of the individual units in the residential block.  (ii) $11,887.10 which the respondent spent on advertising the units to attract buyers.  (iii) $58,029.76 being interest at nine per cent,  calculated on the capital sum of $2,700,000 (the price the applicant agreed to pay) until the date on which the first of the units were sold to another purchaser and then on balances, successively reduced by the net price of each unit when sold.  The calculation of interest on this basis terminated on 15 February 2006 when the last unit was sold.

1. The other component of damages is irrelevant for present purposes and may be ignored.

1. When I gave judgment the respondent sought an order for interest on those three components of the judgment sum and an order for costs on the indemnity basis.  Those questions were not then argued but counsel for both parties have since delivered written submissions.

1. The respondent’s claim for interest is on the three components of damages which I have mentioned from 16 February 2006 to the present. It is made pursuant to s. 47 of the Supreme Court Act 1995.

1. There can, I think, be no objection to an award of interest on the first and second components.  These are losses which the respondent sustained and in respect of which it has been out of pocket.  On ordinary principles they should attract an award of interest. 

1. I think the same is true of…