Gillespie v Gillespie

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gillespie & Ors v Gillespie [2013] QCA 126

PARTIES:

GEOFFREY BRUCE GILLESPIE
(first appellant)
WILLIAM BRUCE GILLESPIE
(second appellant)
MICHAEL PELDAN AND MORGAN LANE ATF THE ESTATE OF ANNETTE MIRIAM MAREE RODGERS (FORMERLY GREEN) (A BANKRUPT)
(third appellant)
v
GLORIA DAWN GILLESPIE
(respondent)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 8193 of 2012
DC No 5 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Margaret Wilson J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

The appellants are to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF APPEAL – GENERALLY – where the appeal was dismissed – where the parties were given leave to make submissions as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 52 of Practice Direction No 3 of 2013 – where the respondent submitted that costs should follow the event – where the appellants made no submissions as to costs – whether costs should follow the event

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the appellant
No appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

S B Wright & Wright and Condie for the first and second appellants
Tucker & Cowen for the third appellant
Macrossan & Amiet for the respondent

THE COURT: On 7 May 2013 the Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the parties to make written submissions on costs.

The respondent has submitted that costs should follow the event. The appellants have not made any submission on costs.

In the circumstances, the Court orders that the appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gillespie v Gillespie, the primary issue before the court was the allocation of costs for the appeal. The dispute involved a disagreement between the appellants and the respondent regarding the financial burden of the appeal. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia, where the appeal was dismissed. The court was required to determine the appropriate costs allocation following the dismissal of the appeal. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the costs should follow the event, a principle that generally dictates that the losing party should bear the costs of the proceedings.

The court considered the principle that costs typically follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party in a legal proceeding usually pays the costs incurred by the successful party. In this instance, the respondent had submitted that costs should follow the event, while the appellants did not make any submissions regarding the costs of the appeal. Given the absence of submissions from the appellants, the court applied the general rule and found that costs should indeed follow the event. The court's reasoning was grounded in the practice direction, which allows for parties to make submissions on the costs of the appeal and provides a framework for the court's decision.

As a result of the court's decision, the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the standard basis. This outcome reflects the court's adherence to the principle that costs should follow the event, especially in the absence of contrary submissions from the appellants. The final orders of the court were that the appellants were to bear the costs of the appeal as per the standard basis.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Gillespie & Ors v Gillespie [2013] QCA 126
PARTIES:	GEOFFREY BRUCE GILLESPIE (first appellant) WILLIAM BRUCE GILLESPIE (second appellant) MICHAEL PELDAN AND MORGAN LANE ATF THE ESTATE OF ANNETTE MIRIAM MAREE RODGERS (FORMERLY GREEN) (A BANKRUPT) (third appellant) v GLORIA DAWN GILLESPIE (respondent)
FILE NO:	Appeal No 8193 of 2012 DC No 5 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	24 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Margaret Wilson J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	The appellants are to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF APPEAL – GENERALLY – where the appeal was dismissed – where the parties were given leave to make submissions as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with paragraph 52 of Practice Direction No 3 of 2013 – where the respondent submitted that costs should follow the event – where the appellants made no submissions as to costs – whether costs should follow the event
COUNSEL:	No appearance by the appellant No appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers
SOLICITORS:	S B Wright & Wright and Condie for the first and second appellants Tucker & Cowen for the third appellant Macrossan & Amiet for the respondent