Fangyuan v Stockwell (No 2) - [2025] QDC 5

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fangyuan v Stockwell (No 2) [2025] QDC 5

PARTIES:

FAN FANGYUAN
(Applicant)

v

MARK ROBERT STOCKWELL AND BERYL ELANE STOCKWELL
(Respondents)

FILE NO:

BD 1980/23

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers (Written submissions provided by the parties on 6 December 2024 and further written submissions provided by the respondents on 18 December 2024)

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The applicant’s application for leave to re-open her case is refused.

2.   The respondents pay the applicant damages in the sum of $30,503.

3.   The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE – RE-OPENING CASE – BY A PARTY – where the applicant claimed against the respondents and the respondents cross-claimed against the applicant – where after the reasons and decision were delivered but pending further submissions on the form of the orders and costs, the applicant applied for leave to re-open her case – whether the justice of the situation favours the grant of the application

PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE IS THAT COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – WHETHER UNREASOANBLE REFUSAL OF APPLICANT’S OFFERS PRIOR TO TRIAL – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the applicant was successful at trial – where it was submitted the respondents unreasonably subjected the applicant to proceedings and associated costs by not accepting any of the offers made prior to the trial – whether indemnity costs ought to be awarded

PROCEDURE – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – REFUSAL OF APPLICANT’S OFFER – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the applicant was successful at trial – where, after day 3 of the trial, the applicant made an offer to settle the proceedings – where the respondents did not accept the offer – whether the terms of the offer sufficiently clear to be capable of acceptance – whether indemnity costs ought to be awarded

PROCEDURE – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – REFUSAL OF RESPONDENTS’ OFFER – where, after day 3 of the trial, the respondents made an offer to settle the proceedings – where the applicant did not accept the offer –where the respondents argued that there be no order as to costs up to the offer and that the applicant pay their costs on a standard basis after this time – whether the judgment in favour of the applicant was less favourable for the applicant than the offer

PROCEDURE – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – INFORMAL OFFER – where the respondents alternatively rely on their offer as a Calderbank one – whether the applicant’s failure to accept the offer was unreasonable

Property Law Act 1979 (Qld) s 179
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 360, r 360(2), r 361, r 361(3), r 367(1), r 681, Chapter 9, Part 5

Balnaves v Smith [2012] QSC 408

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fangyuan v Stockwell (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QDC 5
Decision Date: 7 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fangyuan v Stockwell (No 2), the applicant, Fangyuan, sought relief against the respondents, Stockwell, who in turn cross-claimed against Fangyuan. The matter proceeded to trial, and after reasons and decisions were delivered, Fangyuan applied for leave to re-open her case, pending further submissions on the form of orders and costs. The respondents opposed the application. The case before the court was to determine whether the justice of the situation favoured the grant of Fangyuan's application to re-open her case, as well as to decide on the allocation of costs between the parties.

The court was required to decide whether it was just to allow Fangyuan to re-open her case, considering the circumstances and the nature of the dispute. Additionally, the court had to determine whether any of the offers made by the parties prior to the trial should result in an order for costs on an indemnity basis, as opposed to the standard basis, given that Fangyuan was successful at trial. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Fangwell unreasonably refused Fangyuan's offers and whether Fangyuan unreasonably refused Stockwell's offer, as well as whether Stockwell's offer was sufficiently clear to be capable of acceptance.

The court found that the justice of the situation did not favour granting Fangyuan's application to re-open her case. The court also determined that Stockwell's refusal of Fangyuan's offers prior to the trial was unreasonable, and as such, Stockwell was ordered to pay Fangyuan's costs of the proceeding on the standard basis. The court further found that Fangyuan's refusal of Stockwell's offer was not unreasonable, and there was no basis to order costs on an indemnity basis in relation to this offer. Consequently, Stockwell was ordered to pay Fangyuan's costs on the standard basis, and damages in the sum of $30,503.

The final orders of the court were that Fangyuan's application for leave to re-open her case was refused, Stockwell was to pay Fangyuan damages in the sum of $30,503, and Stockwell was to pay Fangyuan's costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s application for leave to re-open her case is refused.

2. The respondents pay the applicant damages in the sum of $30,503.

3. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

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:	Fangyuan v Stockwell (No 2) [2025] QDC 5
PARTIES:	FAN FANGYUAN (Applicant) v MARK ROBERT STOCKWELL AND BERYL ELANE STOCKWELL (Respondents)
FILE NO:	BD 1980/23
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	7 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers (Written submissions provided by the parties on 6 December 2024 and further written submissions provided by the respondents on 18 December 2024)
JUDGE:	Rosengren DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The applicant’s application for leave to re-open her case is refused. 2. The respondents pay the applicant damages in the sum of $30,503. 3. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – ADDUCING EVIDENCE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE – RE-OPENING CASE – BY A PARTY – where the applicant claimed against the respondents and the respondents cross-claimed against the applicant – where after the reasons and decision were delivered but pending further submissions on the form of the orders and costs, the applicant applied for leave to re-open her case – whether the justice of the situation favours the grant of the application PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE IS THAT COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – WHETHER UNREASOANBLE REFUSAL OF APPLICANT’S OFFERS PRIOR TO TRIAL – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the applicant was successful at trial – where it was submitted the respondents unreasonably subjected the applicant to proceedings and associated costs by not accepting any of the offers made prior to the trial – whether indemnity costs ought to be awarded PROCEDURE – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – REFUSAL OF APPLICANT’S OFFER – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the applicant was successful at trial – where, after day 3 of the trial, the applicant made an offer to settle the proceedings – where the respondents did not accept the offer – whether the terms of the offer sufficiently clear to be capable of acceptance – whether indemnity costs ought to be awarded PROCEDURE – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – REFUSAL OF RESPONDENTS’ OFFER – where, after day 3 of the trial, the respondents made an offer to settle the proceedings – where the applicant did not accept the offer –where the respondents argued that there be no order as to costs up to the offer and that the applicant pay their costs on a standard basis after this time – whether the judgment in favour of the applicant was less favourable for the applicant than the offer PROCEDURE – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – INFORMAL OFFER – where the respondents alternatively rely on their offer as a Calderbank one – whether the applicant’s failure to accept the offer was unreasonable
Property Law Act 1979 (Qld) s 179 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 360, r 360(2), r 361, r 361(3), r 367(1), r 681, Chapter 9, Part 5 Balnaves v Smith [2012] QSC 408