Hammercall Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council

Case [2005] QCA 143

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hammercall Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council & Anor [2005] QCA 143

PARTIES:

HAMMERCALL PTY LTD ACN 002 663 587
(appellant/applicant)
v
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
(respondent/first respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(co-respondent/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8381 of 2003
P & E Appeal No 12 of 2003
P & E Appeal No 477 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Integrated Planning Act – further orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered on 15 February 2005
Further orders delivered on 6 May 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 September 2004; 14 September 2004; 15 September 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Cullinane J
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1.  That the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the      appeal limited to those costs of and incidental to the      prosecution and hearing of the appellant’s amended      notice of appeal
2.  That the appellant pay the respondents’ costs thrown      away in preparation of the respondents’ responses to      the appellant’s notice or notices of appeal, other than      the final one

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS

COUNSEL:

D Gore QC, with B G Cronin, for the applicant
M D Hinson SC, with S M Ure, for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Andrew P Abaza for the applicant
King & Company for the first respondent
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the second respondent

  1. THE COURT:  This appeal was allowed by Jerrard JA and Cullinane J, who varied the judgment of the Planning and Environment Court by deleting condition 3 from the conditions imposed in Appeal No 12 of 2003 to the Planning and Environment Court, and by the deletion of conditions 5 and 18 of the conditions imposed in Appeal No 477 of 2003 to that court.  McMurdo P gave a dissenting judgment.

  1. The parties were given leave to make submissions with respect to costs within one month of publication of those reasons.  Those submissions have been received and considered.

  1. The orders the Court makes are:

1.          That the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal limited to those costs of and incidental to the prosecution and hearing of the appellant’s amended notice of appeal;

2.          That the appellant pay the respondents’ costs thrown away in preparation of the respondents’ responses to the appellant’s notice or notices of appeal, other than the final one.

Details
AGLC
Hammercall Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2005] QCA 143
Case
[2005] QCA 143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hammercall Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council involved a dispute between the appellant, Hammercall Pty Ltd, and the respondent, Gold Coast City Council. The dispute arose from a decision made by the council regarding a development application. The matter was brought before the court to determine the allocation of costs between the parties involved in the appeal process.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide pertained to the allocation of costs in the appeal process, specifically whether the appellant was entitled to recover the costs of the appeal and whether the respondent was liable for the costs incurred by the appellant in preparing the notices of appeal. The court had to consider the relevant legislation and case law governing the allocation of costs in such circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court found that the appellant was entitled to recover the costs of the appeal, as they were the successful party in the appeal process. However, the court also determined that the respondent was not liable for the costs incurred by the appellant in preparing the notices of appeal, except for the final one. The court held that the appellant should bear the costs of preparing the notices of appeal, as these costs were not directly related to the prosecution and hearing of the appeal. The court's decision was based on the principle that the allocation of costs should be fair and just, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties.

The final orders of the court were that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, limited to those costs of and incidental to the prosecution and hearing of the appellant’s amended notice of appeal. Conversely, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs thrown away in preparation of the respondents’ responses to the appellant’s notice or notices of appeal, other than the final one.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal limited to those costs of and incidental to the prosecution and hearing of the appellant’s amended notice of appeal

2. That the appellant pay the respondents’ costs thrown away in preparation of the respondents’ responses to the appellant’s notice or notices of appeal, other than the final one

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.