SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland (No 2) [2019] QSC 19
PARTIES:
MICHAEL NEIL FERRIER
(applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
SC No 76 of 2018
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:
12 February 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
JUDGE:
Crow J
ORDER:
1. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - where applicant was successful in application for extension of time limitation – whether costs follow the event
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld)
Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
Motor Accident Insurance Act1994 (Qld)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland [2019] QSC 11
Dick v University of Queensland [1999] QSC 43
Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Smith v Advanced Electrics Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 432COUNSEL:
C Heyworth-Smith QC for the applicant
A Mellick for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Macrossan & Amiet for the applicant
BT Lawyers for the respondent
Background Facts
The applicant was successful in his application to extend the period of limitation in respect of personal injuries suffered by him on 31 July 2010.[1] The applicant seeks its costs of and incidental to the application and the respondent opposes that order and seeks alternatively an order that costs be reserved, to be ordered as costs in the cause.
The respondent accepts that pursuant to r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld) costs ordinarily follow the event “with the court however having a discretion to order otherwise.”
The respondent submits in paragraph 2 of its written submissions:
“Before the advent of pre-court proceedings which prevent commencing a proceeding in the Court as of right, the practice was to commence a proceeding and, in that proceeding, bring an interlocutory application for the extension of limitation period. When applications were allowed, the costs orders commonly made were that they be reserved to the trial judge, or they became costs in the cause.”
There are numerous examples of pre-court proceedings cases where costs orders have been made as costs in the cause where an applicant succeeded in the extension of a time limitation period where the applicant had suffered personal injury[2]. I have not located any case by which a successful plaintiff has sought its costs decision.
Certainly, as the respondent’s counsel submits, before the advent of pre-court proceedings, that as the practice was to commence a proceeding (in those days by writ of summons and more lately by claim and statement of claim) costs orders were frequently made as costs in the cause, that is, in the cause which had…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland (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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QSC 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the general rule that costs follow the event, which is a principle in Australian law that typically requires the losing party to bear the costs of the winning party. The court acknowledged that this principle is not absolute and can be departed from in certain circumstances. In this case, the court had to determine whether the exceptional circumstances of the case warranted a departure from this principle. The applicant argued that the respondent's opposition was unreasonable and that the costs should not be borne by the applicant. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the opposition was justified and that the applicant should bear the costs.
The court concluded that, while the principle that costs follow the event is generally applicable, it is not inflexible and can be departed from if the circumstances of the case warrant it. The court found that the respondent's opposition to the application for an extension of time was unreasonable and without merit, and that the applicant had acted reasonably in seeking the extension. As a result, the court held that the costs should follow the event and be borne by the respondent. The court further held that the respondent's opposition was vexatious and that the applicant was entitled to costs on the standard basis.
The court's final order was that the respondent pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis. This decision highlights the importance of the principle that costs follow the event, while also recognising that this principle is not absolute and can be departed from in certain circumstances. The court's decision in this case will be of interest to practitioners dealing with applications for extensions of time and the allocation of costs in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs 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.