Garside v Rohan (No 2)

Case [2018] QSC 313


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Garside v Rohan (No 2) [2018] QSC 313

PARTIES:

GLENN STUART GARSIDE

(plaintiff)

v
DAN ROHAN

(first defendant)
TREVOR JAMES MILES
(second defendant)
JEFF ROBERTSON
(third defendant)
QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD ABN  78 003 191 035
(fourth defendant)
NOMINAL DEFENDANT ABN 65 207 831 553

(fifth defendant)

FILE NO:

Rock No 499 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2018; 3 to 5 September 2018; 11 December 2018

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

1.   The fifth defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed on an indemnity basis; and

2.   The fifth defendant pay the first, second, third and fourth defendants’ costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES – COSTS IN PROCEEDINGS WHERE MULTIPLE PARTIES – COSTS AGAINST ONE OF SEVERAL DEFENDANTS – BULLOCK AND SANDERSON TYPE ORDERS – where the plaintiff sued all the defendants for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident – where the fifth defendant was found to be liable – where the fifth defendant concedes that it ought pay the plaintiff’s costs on an indemnity basis – where the first to fourth defendants seek their costs – whether the plaintiff or the fifth defendant should pay the costs of the first to fourth defendants

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) s 31

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681

Bullock v London General Omnibus Company [1907] 1 KB 264, cited
Dominello v Dominello and Anor; Dominello v The Nominal Defendant and Anor (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 257, distinguished
Garside v Rohan & Ors [2018] QSC 295, related

Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company [1903] 2 KB 533, cited

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor QC and R Green for the plaintiff
R Morton for the first to fourth defendants

G Diehm QC and G O’Driscoll for the fifth defendant

SOLICITORS:

Grant & Simpson for the plaintiff
Barry Nilsson for the first to fourth defendants

Moray & Agnew for the fifth defendant

  1. The plaintiff, Mr Garside sued the five defendants seeking damages for personal injuries suffered by him on 25 November 2014 when he was riding his motorcycle along the Gregory Highway travelling north from Emerald to Capella.

  2. The five defendants fall into two categories.  The first, second, third and fourth defendants form one category, because each of the first, second and third defendants were driving vehicles whose compulsory third party insurer was the fourth defendant, QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (QBE).  I will refer to that first category of defendants as “the QBE defendants”.  The second category of defendants only has one member and that is the fifth defendant, the Nominal Defendant.

  3. On 11 December 2018, I delivered judgment on the trial of Mr Garside’s claim which was heard in Rockhampton.[1]  I made the following orders:

    1.The claim against each of the first, second, third and fourth defendants is dismissed;

    2.Judgment…

Continue reading Garside v Rohan (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Garside v Rohan (No 2) [2018] QSC 313
Case
[2018] QSC 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garside v Rohan (No 2) involved a plaintiff who initiated a lawsuit against multiple defendants for damages related to a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff successfully held the fifth defendant liable, and the fifth defendant conceded that it should pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. The first to fourth defendants sought to have their own costs covered, either by the plaintiff or the fifth defendant. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff or the fifth defendant was responsible for paying the costs incurred by the first to fourth defendants.

The legal issues centred on the principles governing costs in multi-party litigation, particularly when one defendant admits liability and agrees to pay the plaintiff's costs. The first to fourth defendants argued that they should not bear the costs of their own legal proceedings, either because the plaintiff should pay under the "Bullock and Sanderson" type order, or because the fifth defendant should pay under the indemnity basis. The court had to weigh these arguments against the principle that a party who has succeeded in their claims should not be burdened with the costs of others.

The court considered that the fifth defendant, having admitted liability and agreed to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis, should also bear the costs of the first to fourth defendants. The court reasoned that it would be inequitable for the first to fourth defendants to bear their own costs when the fifth defendant had already accepted responsibility for the plaintiff's costs. The court concluded that the fifth defendant's concession to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis extended to covering the costs of all defendants, including the first to fourth defendants.

The court ordered that the fifth defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis and also cover the costs of the first to fourth defendants. This decision reflected the court's view that fairness in litigation required the party who had conceded liability to bear the costs associated with the proceedings, including those of co-defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The fifth defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed on an indemnity basis; and

2. The fifth defendant pay the first, second, third and fourth defendants’ costs of the proceedings.

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.