Hallam, Murray James and Gail Margaret Hallam v Ross James , Burns, Diane Maria Burns (AKA Diane Maria Cavallaro), Glenn Dalby, Susan Margaret Dalby

The plaintiffs, Murray James Hallam and Gail Margaret Hallam, sought contribution from the defendants, Ross James Burns, Diane Maria Burns (aka Diane Maria Cavallaro), Glenn Dalby, and Susan Margaret Dalby, in relation to a sum of $15,600. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiffs were found entitled to contribution from the defendants. The defendants contested the amount of interest and the appropriate scale for assessing costs. The court had to decide on the appropriate amount of interest to be awarded and the correct scale for assessing costs, particularly in light of the offers to settle made during the proceedings.

The court determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest at 8% per annum for a period of three years on the $10,400 payable by the defendants, amounting to $2,496. The court rejected the argument that the defendants were not liable for costs beyond the date of their last offer to settle on 10 March 1998. The plaintiffs were found to have failed to better this offer, and therefore, they must pay the defendants' costs from that date onwards. The court assessed the costs on the District Court scale, appropriate to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, and on the Supreme Court scale for the costs of the defendants' counterclaim. The court held that the defendants were entitled to costs associated with maintaining an injunction, which were to be assessed on the Supreme Court scale.

The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs $12,896, including interest, and deliver releases of the mortgages upon receipt of this amount. The plaintiffs were to pay the defendants' costs from 10 March 1998, assessed on the District Court scale appropriate to a claim of $200,000. Additionally, the plaintiffs were to bear the costs of the defendants' counterclaim, assessed on the Supreme Court scale. The court also noted that the defendants' costs relating to the injunction should be paid by the plaintiffs on the Supreme Court scale.