Farrar v Julian-Armitage - [2016] QCA 141

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Farrar v Julian-Armitage & Anor [2016] QCA 141

PARTIES:

VIKI MAREE FARRAR
(applicant)
v
ANGELA JULIAN-ARMITAGE
(first respondent)
GREGG LAWYERS PTY LTD
ACN 137 730 842
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9554 of 2014
Appeal No 9555 of 2014
DC No 319 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil) – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – [2014] QDC 194

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Henry J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The applicant pay the second respondent the respondents’ costs fixed at $45,000.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS – DISCRETION – where the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis in an amount fixed by the court unless the parties agreed – where the parties did not agree as to costs – where the parties prepared an itemised cost statement and objections for the purpose of the court to fix costs – where the court held an itemised cost assessment is not preferable where costs are to be fixed – where the court fixed the amount of the respondent’s costs in accordance with r 687(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 687, r 705

Amos v Monsour Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 303; [2009] QCA 65, cited
ChongHerr Investments Ltd v Titan Sandstone Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 167, cited
ChongHerr Investments Ltd v Titan Sandstone Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 278, cited
Farrar v Julian-Armitage & Anor [2015] QCA 289, cited
Goodwin v O’Driscoll & Anor[2008] QCA 43, cited
Sochorova v Commonwealth of Australia[2012] QCA 152, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the applicant, the applicant’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance by the respondents, the respondents’ submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
No appearance for the respondents

[1]THE COURT: In dismissing the application for leave to appeal this court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application on the standard basis in an amount to be fixed by the court unless agreed.[1]
[1]Farrar v Julian-Armitage & Anor [2015] QCA 289.
[2]Costs have not been agreed. It therefore falls to this court to fix costs.
[3]The court here preferred the process of fixing costs, rather than leaving them to be assessed, in circumstances where the subject of the application was itself a case involving a protracted dispute about a costs assessment.[2] The parties made even this process more complicated for themselves than it had to be.
[2]Farrar v Julian-Armitage & Anor [2015] QCA 289, [102].
The nature of the process to be undertaken
[4]The general rule, reflected in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”) at r 687(1), is that the…

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 Farrar v Julian-Armitage

Details

AGLC: Farrar v Julian-Armitage [2016] QCA 141
Case: [2016] QCA 141
Decision Date: 3 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Farrar was the applicant in a proceeding against Julian-Armitage, the second respondent. The applicant sought to have the second respondent pay their costs. The primary judge ordered that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs on the standard basis in an amount to be fixed by the court unless the parties agreed. The parties did not agree, and so the court was required to fix the amount of costs. The court received an itemised cost statement and objections from both parties for the purpose of fixing costs. The court held that an itemised cost assessment is not preferable where costs are to be fixed. Instead, the court fixed the amount of the second respondent's costs in accordance with rule 687(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court fixed the amount at $45,000.

The court's reasoning was that the parties did not reach an agreement as to the costs. The itemised cost assessment was not preferable as it would have been a lengthy and unnecessary process where the court was required to fix the costs. Instead, the court exercised its discretion to fix the amount of the second respondent's costs. The court considered the overall amount of the costs, the complexity of the case, and the nature of the dispute. The court held that the amount of $45,000 was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The final orders were that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs fixed at $45,000. The court's decision highlights the importance of the parties reaching an agreement as to costs. Where the parties do not reach an agreement, the court will exercise its discretion to fix the amount of costs. The court will consider the overall amount of the costs, the complexity of the case, and the nature of the dispute in fixing the amount of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant pay the second respondent the respondents’ costs fixed at $45,000.

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:	Farrar v Julian-Armitage & Anor [2016] QCA 141
PARTIES:	VIKI MAREE FARRAR (applicant) v ANGELA JULIAN-ARMITAGE (first respondent) GREGG LAWYERS PTY LTD ACN 137 730 842 (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9554 of 2014 Appeal No 9555 of 2014 DC No 319 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil) – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – [2014] QDC 194
DELIVERED ON:	3 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGE:	Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Henry J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	The applicant pay the second respondent the respondents’ costs fixed at $45,000.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS – DISCRETION – where the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis in an amount fixed by the court unless the parties agreed – where the parties did not agree as to costs – where the parties prepared an itemised cost statement and objections for the purpose of the court to fix costs – where the court held an itemised cost assessment is not preferable where costs are to be fixed – where the court fixed the amount of the respondent’s costs in accordance with r 687(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 687, r 705 Amos v Monsour Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 303; [2009] QCA 65, cited ChongHerr Investments Ltd v Titan Sandstone Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 167, cited ChongHerr Investments Ltd v Titan Sandstone Pty Ltd[2007] QCA 278, cited Farrar v Julian-Armitage & Anor [2015] QCA 289, cited Goodwin v O’Driscoll & Anor[2008] QCA 43, cited Sochorova v Commonwealth of Australia[2012] QCA 152, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance by the applicant, the applicant’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance by the respondents, the respondents’ submissions were heard on the papers
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant No appearance for the respondents