Griffiths v Bradshaw (No 2)

The case of Griffiths v Bradshaw (No 2) involved a dispute between the appellant, Griffiths, and the respondent, Bradshaw, concerning the assessment of costs in relation to a property dispute. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the Court was whether the general rule that costs follow the event applied, or if there were special circumstances warranting an award of costs against the servient owner under section 180(6) of the Property Law Act 1974. The Court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's conduct warranted such an order, given that the respondent had abandoned a claim that was ultimately found to be unfounded.

The Court considered the nature of the respondent's claim and the circumstances under which it was abandoned. It was noted that the respondent had initially pursued a claim that was later deemed to be without merit. The Court assessed whether the respondent's actions amounted to special circumstances that justified departing from the general rule. The analysis focused on whether the respondent's conduct was vexatious, oppressive, or an abuse of the Court process, and whether the appellant had been prejudiced by the respondent's actions.

In its judgment, the Court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not constitute special circumstances warranting an order for costs against the servient owner. The Court found that while the respondent's claim was ultimately unsuccessful, there was no evidence to suggest that the claim was brought in bad faith or that it amounted to an abuse of the Court process. As such, the general rule that costs follow the event was upheld. The Court did not find that the appellant had been prejudiced by the respondent's actions to a degree that would warrant an exception to the general rule.

The final orders of the Court were delivered ex tempore on 25 June 2015, and the draft orders were amended accordingly. The Court upheld the general principle that costs follow the event and did not grant the appellant an order for costs against the respondent under section 180(6) of the Property Law Act 1974. The case underscores the importance of the general rule in cost assessments and the high threshold for departing from this principle.