EPAS Ltd v. James & Ors - [2007] QSC 49

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

EPAS Ltd v James & Ors [2007] QSC 49

PARTIES:

EPAS LIMITED (ACN 010 642 314)
(respondent/plaintiff)
v
TERRANCE ROBERT JAMES
(first defendant)
and
JOHN KENNETH SHEILDS
(second defendant)
and
JEFFREY JOHN JAMES
(third defendant)
and
GERALD LEONARD PARKER
(fourth defendant)
and
HENRY ANTHONY GREENROD
(fifth defendant)
and
MERVYN J HEAD, JOHN R CHEEL and KENNETH J THOMPSON
(sixth defendants)
and
OMITTED
(seventh defendant)
and
AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant/eighth defendant)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
MICHAEL BURNETT
(respondent)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
MARGARET HOCH
(respondent)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH LAWYERS
(respondent)

AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632)
(applicant)
v
ROGER MARC DERRINGTON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S3544 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2007

JUDGE:

Wilson J

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – COSTS ORDERS – principles for granting leave to appeal costs orders – whether to grant leave to appeal

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253

Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225, applied
Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd [2003] QSC 484, considered
Grundmann v Georgeson [1996] QCA 189, considered
Morrison v Hudson [2006] QCA 170, cited

COUNSEL:

P L O'Shea SC and S E Brown for the applicant

J H Dalton SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the applicant
Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers for the respondents

Wilson J: This is an application pursuant to s 253 of the Supreme Court Act1995 (Qld) for leave to appeal against the following costs orders which I made yesterday –

“1) That the applicant eighth defendant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the 4 disqualification applications (document numbers 85, 86, 87 and 88 in S3544 of 2000) to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
2) That the eighth defendant pay the costs thrown away by reason of the applications filed on 9 February 2007 and 13 February 2007 (in S3543 of 2000 and S3544 of 2000) not proceeding on 21 and 22 February 2007 to be assessed on the standard basis.”

See EPAS Ltd v James & Ors.[1]

[1][2007] QSC 47.

The making of an order as to costs involves the exercise of judicial discretion on a procedural question. By s 253 an appeal against such an order may be brought only with the leave of the judge who made the order. In Morrison v Hudson[2] Keane JA (with whom the other members of the Court of Appeal agreed) approved the observation of Chesterman J in Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd[3] –

“The evident purpose of…

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 EPAS Ltd v. James & Ors

Details

AGLC: EPAS Ltd v James [2007] QSC 49
Case: [2007] QSC 49
Decision Date: 7 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were EPAS Limited, the appellant, and James and others, the respondents. The dispute pertained to the costs incurred during the proceedings, specifically regarding the principles for granting leave to appeal costs orders and whether leave to appeal should be granted. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the court was the assessment of costs and the principles guiding the granting of leave to appeal such costs orders. The court had to determine whether the appellant, EPAS Limited, was entitled to leave to appeal the decision of the primary judge concerning the costs orders.

The court considered the principles established in relevant case law for granting leave to appeal costs orders. It examined whether the appeal raised a question of law of general public importance, whether there was a need for uniformity in the law, and whether the appeal had prospects of success. The court also evaluated whether the costs orders were so exorbitant or unreasonable that they warranted an appeal. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the appeal did not meet the stringent criteria for leave to appeal. The principles for granting such leave were not satisfied in this instance.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal the costs orders. The reasoning was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the established legal principles. The court found that the appellant's arguments did not sufficiently demonstrate the necessity for an appeal on the grounds of legal importance, uniformity, or prospects of success. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was denied. The orders made by the court were that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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:	EPAS Ltd v James & Ors [2007] QSC 49
PARTIES:	EPAS LIMITED (ACN 010 642 314) (respondent/plaintiff) v TERRANCE ROBERT JAMES (first defendant) and JOHN KENNETH SHEILDS (second defendant) and JEFFREY JOHN JAMES (third defendant) and GERALD LEONARD PARKER (fourth defendant) and HENRY ANTHONY GREENROD (fifth defendant) and MERVYN J HEAD, JOHN R CHEEL and KENNETH J THOMPSON (sixth defendants) and OMITTED (seventh defendant) and AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant/eighth defendant) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v MICHAEL BURNETT (respondent) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v MARGARET HOCH (respondent) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH LAWYERS (respondent) AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 008 405 632) (applicant) v ROGER MARC DERRINGTON (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	S3544 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	7 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2007
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – COSTS ORDERS – principles for granting leave to appeal costs orders – whether to grant leave to appeal Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 253 Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225, applied Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd [2003] QSC 484, considered Grundmann v Georgeson [1996] QCA 189, considered Morrison v Hudson [2006] QCA 170, cited
COUNSEL:	P L O'Shea SC and S E Brown for the applicant J H Dalton SC for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Minter Ellison for the applicant Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers for the respondents