Hampson v Jackson (No. 2) - [2025] QDC 115

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hampson & Ors v Jackson (No. 2) [2025] QDC 115

PARTIES:

Harry Edmund Edgar Hampson

(First plaintiff)

and

Greta Rose Kathleen Hampson

(Second plaintiff)

and

Edmund John Cedric Hampson

(Third plaintiff)

and

Ava Elizabeth Grace Hampson

(Fourth plaintiff)

and

John James Edmund Hampson, by his litigation guardian, Pepita Marie Hampson

(Fifth plaintiff)

and

Edmund Cecil Cedric Edward Hampson

(Sixth plaintiff)

and

Clayfield Administration Services

ACN 607 567 484

(Seventh plaintiff)

v

Carmen Louise Jackson

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2346 of 2024

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Costs hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers.

JUDGES:

Byrne KC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.     The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the hearing of 21 November 2024 (resulting in the order made 22 November 2024) on the standard basis, as assessed or agreed.

2.     The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing from 22 November 2024 on the indemnity basis, as assessed or agreed.

3.     The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing incurred prior to 22 November 2024, if any, on the standard basis, as assessed or agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – where the plaintiffs commenced proceedings seeking orders for the return of numerous items of property and related damages – where an order was made on 22 November 2024 for the plaintiffs’ recovery of all but 23 items of property and costs awarded to the plaintiff up until 18 October 2024 and costs reserved thereafter – where the defendant made an offer on 18 October 2024 and another offer on 14 November 2024 concerning the orders made 22 November 2024 – where neither offer was accepted – whether the defendant is entitled to costs of that proceeding on the indemnity basis.

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – where a separate question hearing took place regarding the remaining 23 items of property and some others that were added to the proceeding – where the defendant sent an offer of compromise on 14 November 2024 in relation to the separate question hearing on 22 November 2024, which was open until 25 November 2024 – where the offer was refused – where the defendant substantially succeeded on the separate question hearing – whether the offer of compromise was reasonable – whether costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis on and from 22 November 2024.

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rule 681.

CASES:

Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93.
Hampson & Ors v Jackson [2025] QDC 36.
Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No. 2) [2005] 13 VR 435.
J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Limited & Ors [2014] QCA 23.
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998]

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hampson v Jackson (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QDC 115
Decision Date: 2 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hampson v Jackson (No. 2), the plaintiffs sought the return of numerous items of property and related damages. The dispute reached the court with two main periods of costs in question: the period from 18 October 2024 to 22 November 2024, and the costs related to a separate question hearing. The defendant had made offers to compromise, none of which were accepted. The court was required to determine whether costs should be awarded on a standard or indemnity basis, focusing on the concept of "relevant delinquency" as a basis for indemnity costs.

The legal issues centered around the principles of costs following the event and the nature of indemnity costs. The plaintiffs argued that they should be compensated on the standard basis, while the defendant sought indemnity costs due to the plaintiffs' refusal to accept their offers of compromise. The court considered the success of each party in the separate question hearing and the failure to accept offers as potential grounds for indemnity costs. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that costs follow the event, and an indemnity order should reflect some form of relevant delinquency by the unsuccessful party.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs were to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing from 22 November 2024 on the indemnity basis. Conversely, the defendant was to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the hearing on 21 November 2024 on the standard basis. The court found that the refusal to accept offers of compromise was a relevant delinquency justifying an indemnity costs order for the period in question.

The final orders were that the defendant would pay the plaintiffs’ costs for the hearing on 21 November 2024 on the standard basis, while the plaintiffs would pay the defendant’s costs for the separate question hearing from 22 November 2024 on the indemnity basis. Additionally, the plaintiffs would pay the defendant’s costs for the separate question hearing incurred prior to 22 November 2024 on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the hearing of 21 November 2024 (resulting in the order made 22 November 2024) on the standard basis, as assessed or agreed.

2. The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing from 22 November 2024 on the indemnity basis, as assessed or agreed.

3. The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing incurred prior to 22 November 2024, if any, on the standard basis, as assessed or agreed.

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

It is in that context that the plaintiffs submit that they should be paid their costs, on the standard basis on the District Court scale. On the other hand, the defendant submits that costs should be ordered:(a)In respect of the costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing, the plaintiffs should pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis;(b)In respect of the costs reserved by the order of 22 November 2024, the plaintiffs should pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis; and(c)The plaintiffs pay 75 percent of the defendant’s costs of the proceedings (other than in respect of the separate question hearing) for the period after 18 October 2024 until the remittal of the matter to the Magistrates Court.Consideration There are at least two periods of time, or types of events, relevant to this costs order; the reserved costs for the period from 18 October 2024 to 22 November 2024 and the costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing. The defendant refers in written submissions to other costs of the proceedings for the period after 18 October 2024 until the order of remittal, which occurred on 4 April 2025. The defendant does not suggest what those costs might relate to. The plaintiffs do not suggest there are any such costs. Otherwise, the proceeding has been remitted to the Magistrates Court for assessment of damages, and that Court can make whatever orders are appropriate for the remitted proceedings. The starting point is to recognise that costs usually follow the event.[3] Insofar as the separate question hearing is concerned, each side contends that they were successful. While the plaintiffs recognise that they did not wholly succeed, it is argued that they were faced with a complete loss of recovery of any items unless the proceedings were commenced, that they succeeded in respect of some items that were not the subject of the defendant’s offers, that it has not been demonstrated that the hearing was substantially lengthened by the dispute over those items in respect of which they did not succeed and that this is not an instance where costs should be apportioned on a “separate issues” basis. [3]Rule 681 of the UCPR. On the other hand, the defendant submits that of the 32 items the subject of the separate question hearing the sixth plaintiff succeeded in respect of only seven of those items and that other two plaintiffs failed entirely in respect of those claims. The defendant also relies upon the various offers, none of which were accepted, to argue the position set out above. The discretion as to the ordering of costs is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. The object of a costs order, whether on the standard or indemnity basis, is not to punish the unsuccessful party, but rather to compensate the successful party for the expense to which they were put and to the extent which is justified in all of the circumstances. There may be many bases for justifying an indemnity costs order, but underlying them must be some “relevant delinquency” on the part of the unsuccessful party.[4] The particular relevant delinquency relied on here by the defendant is the failure to accept any offers that had been made. [4]Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72, per Gaudron and Gummow JJ at [44].

CITATION:	Hampson & Ors v Jackson (No. 2) [2025] QDC 115
PARTIES:	Harry Edmund Edgar Hampson (First plaintiff) and Greta Rose Kathleen Hampson (Second plaintiff) and Edmund John Cedric Hampson (Third plaintiff) and Ava Elizabeth Grace Hampson (Fourth plaintiff) and John James Edmund Hampson, by his litigation guardian, Pepita Marie Hampson (Fifth plaintiff) and Edmund Cecil Cedric Edward Hampson (Sixth plaintiff) and Clayfield Administration Services ACN 607 567 484 (Seventh plaintiff) v Carmen Louise Jackson (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	2346 of 2024
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Costs hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	2 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers.
JUDGES:	Byrne KC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the hearing of 21 November 2024 (resulting in the order made 22 November 2024) on the standard basis, as assessed or agreed. 2. The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing from 22 November 2024 on the indemnity basis, as assessed or agreed. 3. The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the separate question hearing incurred prior to 22 November 2024, if any, on the standard basis, as assessed or agreed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – where the plaintiffs commenced proceedings seeking orders for the return of numerous items of property and related damages – where an order was made on 22 November 2024 for the plaintiffs’ recovery of all but 23 items of property and costs awarded to the plaintiff up until 18 October 2024 and costs reserved thereafter – where the defendant made an offer on 18 October 2024 and another offer on 14 November 2024 concerning the orders made 22 November 2024 – where neither offer was accepted – whether the defendant is entitled to costs of that proceeding on the indemnity basis. PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – where a separate question hearing took place regarding the remaining 23 items of property and some others that were added to the proceeding – where the defendant sent an offer of compromise on 14 November 2024 in relation to the separate question hearing on 22 November 2024, which was open until 25 November 2024 – where the offer was refused – where the defendant substantially succeeded on the separate question hearing – whether the offer of compromise was reasonable – whether costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis on and from 22 November 2024.
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rule 681.
CASES:	Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93. Hampson & Ors v Jackson [2025] QDC 36. Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian Workcover Authority (No. 2) [2005] 13 VR 435. J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Limited & Ors [2014] QCA 23. Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998]