Ginn v Ginn; ex parte

The case of Ginn v Ginn; ex parte involves a dispute concerning the review of a Cost Assessor’s Certificate under r 742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The applicant, a non-party, seeks to review the decision of a costs assessor who disallowed certain items in the applicant’s costs statement, thereby reducing the amount that Mr Christopher Ginn, the respondent, was required to pay. The case has a complicated background, with Mr Ginn having previously made allegations against the applicant, leading to an order for the applicant to be paid costs on an indemnity basis. After a costs statement was submitted and assessed, the costs assessor disallowed several items, prompting the applicant to seek a variation of the certificate to allow the disallowed items.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the disallowance of certain items in the costs statement by the costs assessor for lack of particularity constituted a correction of an obvious error under r 708(4)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court examined the nature of the objections raised by the costs assessor and the extent to which they were justified, as well as the principles governing the disallowance of costs items in such circumstances. The applicant argued that the disallowance was not a correction of an obvious error and sought to have the disallowed items included in the costs assessment.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, determined that the disallowance of the items by the costs assessor did not constitute a correction of an obvious error. The court found that the disallowance was based on a legitimate concern about the particularity of the costs statement, but this did not amount to an obvious error. Consequently, the court varied the decision of the costs assessor to allow the disallowed items and adjusted the total costs payable by the respondent accordingly. The court’s decision was grounded in its interpretation of the relevant rules and the circumstances of the case, ensuring that the costs assessment reflected the true expenses incurred by the applicant.

In summary, the court granted the applicant's request to vary the costs assessor’s certificate, allowing the disallowed items and setting the total costs payable by the respondent at $8,799.50. This decision provides clarity on the scope of a costs assessor’s authority to disallow items in a costs statement and the criteria for reviewing such decisions.