Freitag v Bruderle

[2012] QSC 207

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Freitag & anor v Bruderle & anor [2012] QSC 207

PARTIES:

SVARGO KLAUS FREITAG
(first plaintiff/first respondent)
SVARGO KLAUS FREITAG as Administrator of the
Estate of GUNTER MULLER
(second plaintiff/second respondent)
v
DIETHARDT EUGEN BRUDERLE
(first defendant/applicant)
PARS PRO TOTO PTY LTD ACN 010 859 579

(second defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 165/09

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

27 July 2012 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2012

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

1.   The application and cross-application are dismissed.

2.   No order as to costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – PRACTICE – where the applicant, the successful first defendant at trial, seeks orders requiring the respondent to pay certain costs including photocopying fees, transcript fees, postal fees, company and other search fees, travel expenses, expert witness expenses and a facsimile fee – where the applicant is self-represented – whether the applicant can recover those costs 

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 221.
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr, 680, 691(1).

Cachia v Hanes & Anor [1994] 179 CLR 403.
Commissioner of Police v Merrin [2002] QCA 480.
Merrin v Commissioner of Police; Merrin & Anor v Commissioner of Police [2012] QCA 181.
Sochorova v The Commonwealth [2012] QCA 152.
Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26.

COUNSEL:

SK Freitag for himself and the second plaintiff/respondent
D Bruderle for himself and the second respondent/applicant

SOLICITORS:

SK Freitag for himself and the second plaintiff/respondent
D Bruderle for himself and the second respondent/applicant

HIS HONOUR:  The applicant, the successful first defendant in the hearing of the claim and subsequent appeal, makes application for orders requiring the respondent to pay certain costs.  I note in passing the application does not name the respondent which must be one or both of the plaintiffs, Svargo Klaus Freitag and Svargo Klaus Freitag as administrator of the estate Gunter Muller in the failed action.  That technicality is of no moment given the reasons that I will in due course give as to the ultimate outcome of the application.

In relation to the failed action I note the Court of Appeal's reasons said there should be no costs, so this application must be taken to relate only to proceedings in this Court which culminated in the orders of Jones J, although I note it also seeks costs associated with the bringing of the present application as well.  Again, for the reasons I will give, the outcome for costs in respect of the current application as well as the outcome for costs in respect of the orders of Justice Jones is inevitably identical.

The orders of Justice Jones made on 31 May 2011 in orders 1 and 2 involve substantial orders going to the outcome of the action.  Then his Honour ordered:

"3.The plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs to be assessed on the standard basis, such order to be stayed until 21 July 2011 if either party, by submissions in writing, seek a…