SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Geary v REJV Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC 10
PARTIES:
JAMES LEONARD GEARY
(Plaintiff)
and
REJV SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 081 482 457)
(First Defendant)
and
ZINIFEX CENTURY LIMITED
(ACN 006 670 300)
(Second Defendant)
and
BRADKEN RESOURCES PTY LIMITED
(ACN 098 300 988)
(Third Defendant)
and
UNITED GROUP RESOURCES (SERVICES) LIMITED
(ACN 010 045 299)
(Fourth Defendant)
FILE NO:
S212/2008
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court Townsville
DELIVERED ON:
2 February 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Townsville
HEARING DATE:
Submissions made in writing
JUDGE:
North J
ORDER:
On the question of costs I order:
1. In respect of the judgment against the first defendant, there be no order as to costs;
2. In respect of the judgment against the second, third and fourth defendants:
(a) the second, third and fourth defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis up to and including 1 August 2011; and
(b) the plaintiff pay the second, third and fourth defendants' costs to be assessed on the standard basis from 2 August 2011.
CATCHWORDS:
COSTS - discretionary considerations
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - mistake or slip in order or certificate
CASES:
Amos v Brisbane City Council [2005] QCA 433
Rose v Terry Hewat Commercial Diving Pty Ltd (SC) (Qld), Demack J, No 115/95, 17 August 1999, unreported, (BC 9907530).
COUNSEL:
A Moon for the plaintiff
G Crow SC for the defendants
SOLICITORS:
Connolly Suthers for the plaintiff
Dibbs Barker for the defendants
On 21 December 2011 judgment was pronounced in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $367,449.13 and against each of the second, third and fourth defendants in the sum of $380,349.38. The parties were given leave to make submissions in writing with respect to costs. These have been made.[1]
[1] (1) Plaintiff's submissions 18/1/2012.
(2) Defendants' submissions 18/1/2012.
(3) Defendants' submissions in reply 23/1/2012.
(4) Plaintiff's response to submissions in reply 27/1/2012.
On 11 March 2008 the parties participated in compulsory conferences convened pursuant to the Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA) (as between the plaintiff and the first defendant) and under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act2002 (Qld) ("PIPA") (as between the plaintiff and the second, third and fourth defendants). The matter failed to resolve at the compulsory conferences and the parties exchanged mandatory final offers:
1. Plaintiff (as against the first defendant) $725,000 inclusive of the refund;
2. Plaintiff (as against the second, third and fourth defendants) $725,000 plus costs;
3. First Defendant - Nil (clear of the refund of $12,900.25);
4. Second Defendant - $80,000 plus costs;
5. Third Defendant - $1; and
6. Fourth Defendant - Nil.
None of the mandatory final offers were accepted and they lapsed on 25 March 2008.
On 18 July 2011, the defendants served upon the plaintiff a joint formal offer pursuant to Part 5 of Chapter 9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Geary v REJV Services Pty Ltd 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
- [2012] QSC 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the procedural errors made by the plaintiff's solicitors constituted a mistake or slip that warranted the court to exercise its discretion to order costs in a manner different from the usual rules. The court also had to consider the extent to which these errors impacted the defendants' liability for costs and whether the defendants' conduct warranted any contribution to the plaintiff's costs. The court considered the general principles of costs in litigation and the specific provisions of the relevant legislation and case law that guide discretionary cost orders.
In its judgment, the court determined that while the plaintiff's solicitors had made procedural errors, these did not absolve the defendants from their responsibility to pay costs. However, the court found that the defendants' conduct did not warrant a complete indemnity for costs. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs up to a certain date but not thereafter. The court also ruled that the plaintiff should bear the defendants' costs from a later date, reflecting a balanced approach to the distribution of costs. The final orders reflect this balanced approach, with specific provisions for the payment of costs by both parties, taking into account the procedural errors and the overall conduct of the litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
On the question of costs I order:
1. In respect of the judgment against the first defendant, there be no order as to costs;
2. In respect of the judgment against the second, third and fourth defendants:
(a) the second, third and fourth defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis up to and including 1 August 2011; and
(b) the plaintiff pay the second, third and fourth defendants' costs to be assessed on the standard basis from 2 August 2011.
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.