Hanrick v Donsky

[2025] QDC 118

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hanrick v Donsky [2025] QDC 118

PARTIES:

RICHARD HANRICK

(Applicant)

v

TIMOTHY DONSKY

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

886/25

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 July 2025

JUDGE:

Grigg DCJ

ORDER:

Applicant pay the respondent’s costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment on a standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – COSTS ORDER – Standard costs – General rule – Costs follow the event – whether the adjournment application could have been made prior to the hearing – whether the applicant’s wish to proceed by way of originating application warranted an indemnity costs order.

LEGISLATION:

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 179

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 11(a), 14, 14(2), 429H, 702, 704(1)

CASES:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 598
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Down v Murray [2017] QDC 313
MA v Qin (No 2) [2025] VSC 364

Smits v Tabone [2007] QCA 337

COUNSEL:

R McDermott for the Applicant

C Doyle for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

RB Lawyers for the Applicant

Kilmartin Knyvett Lawyers for the Respondent

Introduction

1. The parties are in dispute about a trench that runs along the cadastral boundary line of their respective properties. The applicant is concerned that the existence of the trench will cause damage to buildings on the applicant’s property if it is not filled in.

2. It is not controversial that the parties agreed that the respondent could dig the trench in April 2024, to allow the respondent to install a pipe along the length of the respondent’s property. The parties dispute, among other things, is whether it was part of the agreement that the trench would be refilled within a reasonable time.

3. The applicant commenced the claim by originating application on 17 April 2025, seeking final relief in the form of a mandatory injunction.

4. At the original hearing for the matter, Counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter should have proceeded by way of claim and statement of claim. The respondent also informed the Court that he objected to the admission of the entirety of a report prepared by a structural engineer, Mr Meng. The applicant was intending to rely on Mr Meng’s report as an expert witness report. The respondent objected to the admission of Mr Meng’s report on the grounds that it:

   (a)was non-compliant with the expert evidence rules in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR);[1]

   (b)is deficient in that Mr Meng fails to explain how he reaches his conclusions.

   [1] See rule 429H Requirements for report.

5. Following the discussion about these matters raised by the respondent, I adjourned the hearing briefly so the parties could discuss how best to proceed and attempt to agree on directions for the progress of the matter.

6. After the adjournment, the parties agreed to the following directions being made:

   (a)that pursuant to r 14(2)…