Famestock Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road Community Title Scheme 24368

Case [2015] QCA 142


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Famestock Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road Community Title Scheme 24368 [2015] QCA 142

PARTIES:

FAMESTOCK PTY LTD
ACN 010 499 989
(appellant/cross-respondent)
v
THE BODY CORPORATE FOR NO 9 PORT DOUGLAS ROAD COMMUNITY TITLE SCHEME 24368
(respondent/cross-appellant)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 11300 of 2012
SC No 48 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Cairns – [2012] QSC 129

DELIVERED ON:

7 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Douglas J
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1.   The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made on 29 November 2013 in Supreme Court proceeding no. 48 of 2008 (the Supreme Court Proceeding) be fixed in the amount of $178,351.16.

2.   The amounts paid by the Appellant and received by the Respondent as security for costs in the Supreme Court Proceeding, being $75,000.00, be offset against the costs fixed in order no. 1 above, leaving a balance of $103,351.16 due to the Respondent.

3.   The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made on 29 November 2013 in this Appeal proceeding (the Appeal Proceeding) be fixed in the amount of $70,173.08.

4.   The amount paid by the Appellant and received by the Respondent as security for costs in the Appeal Proceeding, being $21,278.34, be offset against the costs fixed with respect to the Appeal Proceeding in order no. 3 above, leaving a balance due to the Respondent in the sum of $48,894.74.

5.   The indemnity costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made 8 June 2012 by Henry J in the Supreme Court Proceeding be fixed in the amount of $1,243.31.

6.   The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made 23 September 2011 by Henry J in the Supreme Court Proceeding be fixed in the amount of $14,233.00.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – ORDER FOR COSTS – where the respondent applied for orders fixing the amounts for costs payable to it by the appellant following the conclusion of the substantive litigation – where an affidavit by a solicitor sufficiently established that the amounts sought to be fixed are reasonable and proper amounts to be fixed as the costs payable under the costs orders

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 687

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the appellant/cross-respondent, the appellant’s/cross-respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance by the respondent/cross-appellant

SOLICITORS:

Thynne & Macartney for the appellant/cross-respondent
No appearance for the respondent/cross-appellant

  1. THE COURT:  The respondent has applied for orders fixing the amounts for costs payable to it by the appellant under four costs orders: see Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 687(2)(c). The substantive litigation was concluded by a judgment of the Court of Appeal in late 2013.[1]  An affidavit by a solicitor sufficiently establishes that the amounts sought to be fixed are reasonable and proper amounts to be fixed as the costs payable under the costs orders.  The appellant has not sought to be heard after being notified of the application and that the Court proposes to decide it on the papers and make orders as sought by the respondent.  In these circumstances it is appropriate to make orders substantially in the form sought.

    [1]Famestock Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road Community Title Scheme 24368 [2013] QCA 354 (de Jersey CJ, Fraser JA and Douglas J). Pursuant to s 31(1) of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, the effect of de Jersey CJ’s resignation as a judge on 8 July 2014 is that the remaining two judges may finish the hearing and determination of the proceeding.

  2. The Court orders as follows:

    1.The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made on 29 November 2013 in Supreme Court proceeding no. 48 of 2008 (the Supreme Court Proceeding) be fixed in the amount of $178,351.16.

    2.The amounts paid by the Appellant and received by the Respondent as security for costs in the Supreme Court Proceeding, being $75,000.00, be offset against the costs fixed in order no. 1 above, leaving a balance of $103,351.16 due to the Respondent.

    3.The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made on 29 November 2013 in this Appeal proceeding (the Appeal Proceeding) be fixed in the amount of $70,173.08.

    4.The amount paid by the Appellant and received by the Respondent as security for costs in the Appeal Proceeding, being $21,278.34, be offset against the costs fixed with respect to the Appeal Proceeding in order no. 3 above, leaving a balance due to the Respondent in the sum of $48,894.74.

    5.The indemnity costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made 8 June 2012 by Henry J in the Supreme Court Proceeding be fixed in the amount of $1,243.31.

    6.The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made 23 September 2011 by Henry J in the Supreme Court Proceeding be fixed in the amount of $14,233.00.


Details
AGLC
Famestock Pty Ltd v The Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road Community Title Scheme 24368 [2015] QCA 142
Case
[2015] QCA 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Famestock Pty Ltd contested an order from the Body Corporate for No 9 Port Douglas Road Community Title Scheme 24368 regarding costs. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The dispute involved the appellant's challenge to the respondent's application for orders fixing the amounts for costs payable to it by the appellant following the conclusion of the substantive litigation. The respondent sought to establish the reasonableness and propriety of the costs claimed through an affidavit by a solicitor.

The central legal issue was whether the affidavit provided sufficient evidence to establish that the amounts sought were reasonable and proper costs. The court needed to determine if the costs claimed were properly calculated and whether the offset of security for costs against the total costs was appropriate. The appeal also addressed whether the indemnity costs and other costs ordered in previous proceedings were correctly calculated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the affidavit by the solicitor was sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the costs. The court confirmed that the amounts sought to be fixed were reasonable and proper, and the offsetting of security for costs was correctly applied. The indemnity costs and other costs were also confirmed to be correctly calculated. The court fixed the costs in the amounts specified in the orders, ensuring that the appellant was required to pay the respondent the correct balance after offsets.

The final orders mandated that the appellant pay the respondent specific amounts for costs incurred in both the Supreme Court and Appeal proceedings, after accounting for offsets. The court ensured that all costs were properly fixed and that the respondent received the correct balance due.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made on 29 November 2013 in Supreme Court proceeding no. 48 of 2008 (the Supreme Court Proceeding) be fixed in the amount of $178,351.16.

2. The amounts paid by the Appellant and received by the Respondent as security for costs in the Supreme Court Proceeding, being $75,000.00, be offset against the costs fixed in order no. 1 above, leaving a balance of $103,351.16 due to the Respondent.

3. The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made on 29 November 2013 in this Appeal proceeding (the Appeal Proceeding) be fixed in the amount of $70,173.08.

4. The amount paid by the Appellant and received by the Respondent as security for costs in the Appeal Proceeding, being $21,278.34, be offset against the costs fixed with respect to the Appeal Proceeding in order no. 3 above, leaving a balance due to the Respondent in the sum of $48,894.74.

5. The indemnity costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made 8 June 2012 by Henry J in the Supreme Court Proceeding be fixed in the amount of $1,243.31.

6. The costs the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent by order made 23 September 2011 by Henry J in the Supreme Court Proceeding be fixed in the amount of $14,233.00.

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.