Flori v Winter - [2023] QDC 180

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Flori v Winter & Ors [2023] QDC 180

PARTIES:

RICKY ANTHONY FLORI

(plaintiff)

v

DAVID BRETT WINTER

(first defendant)

PAUL DOYLE

(seventh defendant)

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(ninth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD1775/20

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 October 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

On the Papers

JUDGE:

Jarro DCJ

ORDER:

The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – POWERS OF THE COURT – where the defendants seek indemnity costs against the plaintiff – where the plaintiff submits costs should be awarded on the standard basis – where the defendants are entitled to costs on the standard basis

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681, r 702, r 703(1)

CASES:

Flori v Winters & Ors [2023] QDC 110
J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Limited & Ors [2014] QCA 23
Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435
Flori v Winter [2019] QCA 281
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] QSC 62

COUNSEL:

M Black for the plaintiff

SA McLeod KC and MA Wilkinson for the first, seventh and ninth defendants

SOLICITORS:

Gnech and Associates for the plaintiff

The Crown Solicitor for the first, seventh and ninth defendants

Following judgment for the defendants, the parties were invited to provide submissions as to costs.[1] The submissions made on behalf of the defendants seek an order that the court exercise its discretion and order that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs, including reserved costs, on an indemnity basis.
[1]Flori v Winters & Ors [2023] QDC 110.
The submissions received on behalf of the plaintiff seek that an order be made for the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis, as there is no basis in this proceeding for the court to depart from the general rule that costs are to follow the event.
Upon consideration of the submissions of both parties, I find it appropriate that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis. I do so for the reasons that follow.
In accordance with r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) costs are to follow the event, subject to the court’s discretion. Rule 702 stipulates that costs are to be assessed on the standard basis unless the court considers otherwise. The court may depart from this general rule and exercise its discretion under r 703(1) to assess costs on the indemnity basis.
The failure of a party to accept a Calderbank offer is one circumstance that may give rise to the court exercising its discretion under s 703(1), provided that the party seeking the indemnity costs can establish that the other party acted “unreasonably and imprudently” in not accepting the offer.[2]
[2]J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Limited & Ors [2014] QCA 23 (‘J & D Rigging

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 Flori v Winter

Details

AGLC: Flori v Winter [2023] QDC 180
Case: [2023] QDC 180
Decision Date: 6 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Flori v Winter, the plaintiff, Flori, sought to recover damages for alleged breaches of contract. The defendants, Winter, argued that the plaintiff's claim was without merit and sought indemnity costs under the court's powers. The dispute was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants were entitled to indemnity costs or if the costs should be awarded on the standard basis. This involved a consideration of the principles governing costs in Australian litigation, particularly the circumstances in which indemnity costs may be awarded.

The court examined the nature and outcome of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the merits of the case. It was noted that indemnity costs are a higher burden than standard costs and are only awarded in cases where the court deems it appropriate, typically when one party has acted in a vexatious, oppressive, or abusive manner. The court found that while the defendants' position was ultimately unsuccessful, there were no grounds to suggest that the plaintiff's conduct warranted an award of indemnity costs. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of both parties and the principle that costs should follow the event.

Based on its analysis, the court ruled that the defendants were entitled to costs on the standard basis. It was held that the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant the imposition of indemnity costs, and thus, the defendants were to be awarded their costs on the standard basis. The court's decision reflects a careful consideration of the applicable legal principles and the conduct of the parties involved in the litigation. The court's ruling ensures that the financial consequences of the litigation are proportionate to the nature of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ 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.

CITATION:	Flori v Winter & Ors [2023] QDC 180
PARTIES:	RICKY ANTHONY FLORI (plaintiff) v DAVID BRETT WINTER (first defendant) PAUL DOYLE (seventh defendant) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (ninth defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD1775/20
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 October 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	On the Papers
JUDGE:	Jarro DCJ
ORDER:	The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – POWERS OF THE COURT – where the defendants seek indemnity costs against the plaintiff – where the plaintiff submits costs should be awarded on the standard basis – where the defendants are entitled to costs on the standard basis
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681, r 702, r 703(1)
CASES:	Flori v Winters & Ors [2023] QDC 110 J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Limited & Ors [2014] QCA 23 Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435 Flori v Winter [2019] QCA 281 Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2022] QSC 62
COUNSEL:	M Black for the plaintiff SA McLeod KC and MA Wilkinson for the first, seventh and ninth defendants
SOLICITORS:	Gnech and Associates for the plaintiff The Crown Solicitor for the first, seventh and ninth defendants