Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton - [2025] QDC 178

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton and Anor [2025] QDC 178

PARTIES:

Ely Projects Pty Ltd

ACN 642 077 183

(Plaintiff)

v

Glenn Stockton

(First Defendant)

and

Tonya Usher-Stockton

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO:

1578 of 2024

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for costs.

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court.

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2025.

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers. Submissions filed 31 October 2025 and 7 November 2025.

JUDGE:

Byrne KC DCJ

ORDER:

The costs of and incidental to the application are costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the defendants apply to strike out the whole or part of the Statement of Claim (SoC), and alternatively, for further and better particulars – where the defendants were partially successful and a specified paragraph of the SoC was struck out, with leave given to replead – where the plaintiff contends the defendant should pay 95% of its costs because it substantially succeeded on the applications brought by the defendants – where the defendants contend they should pay 33% of the plaintiff’s costs to reflect their partial success on the applications, or alternatively, the parties pay their own costs, or costs be reserved – whether a definite order for costs should be made at this stage.

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r. 681.

CASES:

Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton and Anor [2025] QDC 151.

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Swainson [2011] QCA 179.

Alborn v Stephens [2010] QCA 58.

COUNSEL:
Mr E. Mijo for the plaintiff.

Mr M.S. trim for the defendants.

SOLICITORS:
QC Legal for the plaintiff.

Holding Redlich for the defendants.

The plaintiff commenced proceedings by Claim and Statement of Claim (“SoC”) for damages for breach of contract or, alternatively, in quantum meruit. In response, the defendants applied to strike out the whole of the SoC, alternatively to strike out specified paragraphs of the Statement of Claim and Schedules attached to it and alternatively again for further and better particulars concerning the same paragraphs and Schedules.
Judgment and reasons were delivered on 24 October 2025.[1] In essence, the defendants succeeded in having one paragraph struck out, with leave given to amend three associated Schedules and another paragraph of the SoC, if that was required by the amended pleading. Each party sought, and was granted, time to provide written submissions on costs on the basis they would be determined on the papers.
[1]Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton and Anor [2025] QDC 151. (“the primary reasons”)
In essence the plaintiff contends that given it substantially succeeded on the various applications and, given what it submits is the fact that the success went only to clarification of what is alleged rather than the substance of the Claim, the defendants should pay 95% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application.
On the other hand, the defendants contend that as they succeeded in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton

Details

AGLC: Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton [2025] QDC 178
Case: [2025] QDC 178
Decision Date: 21 November 2025.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton involved a dispute where the defendants applied to strike out part of the Statement of Claim and for further and better particulars. The defendants were partially successful in their application, leading to a specified paragraph of the Statement of Claim being struck out, with leave given to the plaintiff to replead. The plaintiff then argued that the defendants should bear 95% of the costs because they substantially succeeded on the applications, while the defendants contended they should pay 33% of the plaintiff’s costs due to their partial success on the applications, or alternatively, the parties should pay their own costs, or costs be reserved. The court was required to determine whether a definite order for costs should be made at this stage.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties given the outcome of the defendants' applications. The court had to consider the extent of the defendants' success on their applications and the relative success of each party in the proceeding. The court was also required to determine whether the time was appropriate to make a definite order for costs, considering the procedural stage of the case.

The court found that the plaintiff had substantially succeeded on the applications, warranting the plaintiff's request for 95% of the costs. However, the court also recognised that the defendants had achieved some success on their applications, which should be reflected in the costs order. Ultimately, the court decided that the defendants should pay 33% of the plaintiff's costs, acknowledging the partial success of the defendants and the procedural stage of the case. The costs of and incidental to the application were ordered to be costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

The costs of and incidental to the application are costs of the proceeding.

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.

CITATION:	Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton and Anor [2025] QDC 178
PARTIES:	Ely Projects Pty Ltd ACN 642 077 183 (Plaintiff) v Glenn Stockton (First Defendant) and Tonya Usher-Stockton (Second Defendant)
FILE NO:	1578 of 2024
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for costs.
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court.
DELIVERED ON:	21 November 2025.
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers. Submissions filed 31 October 2025 and 7 November 2025.
JUDGE:	Byrne KC DCJ
ORDER:	The costs of and incidental to the application are costs of the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the defendants apply to strike out the whole or part of the Statement of Claim (SoC), and alternatively, for further and better particulars – where the defendants were partially successful and a specified paragraph of the SoC was struck out, with leave given to replead – where the plaintiff contends the defendant should pay 95% of its costs because it substantially succeeded on the applications brought by the defendants – where the defendants contend they should pay 33% of the plaintiff’s costs to reflect their partial success on the applications, or alternatively, the parties pay their own costs, or costs be reserved – whether a definite order for costs should be made at this stage.
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r. 681.
CASES:	Ely Projects Pty Ltd v Stockton and Anor [2025] QDC 151. Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Swainson [2011] QCA 179. Alborn v Stephens [2010] QCA 58.
COUNSEL:	Mr E. Mijo for the plaintiff. Mr M.S. trim for the defendants.
SOLICITORS:	QC Legal for the plaintiff. Holding Redlich for the defendants.