Hanson v Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd - [2019] QCA 207

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hanson & Anor v Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QCA 207

PARTIES:

In Appeal No 7390 of 2018; Appeal No 9804 of 2018 and Appeal No 9806 of 2018:

DOROTHY MAUREEN HANSON
(first appellant)
NORMAN RICHARD HANSON
(second appellant)
v
GOOMBOORIAN TRANSPORT PTY LTD
ACN 011 054 658
(first respondent)
J & M LOGHANDLING PTY LTD
ACN 011 054 667
(second respondent)
BELLING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 123 710 734
(third respondent)
GOOMBOORIAN LOGGING PTY LTD
ACN 076 970 995
(fourth respondent)
LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD
ACN 086 875 845
(fifth respondent)
EMMERDALE FARMING PTY LTD
ACN 151 515 909
(sixth respondent)
JILRAY PTY LTD
ACN 058 181 463
(seventh respondent)
J & M FARMING PTY LTD
ACN 086 991 291
(eighth respondent)
J & M FARMING PTY LTD and LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD
ABN 89 152 178 639
(ninth respondent)
JOHN GERHARD BELLING
(tenth respondent)
MARLENE ANNE BELLING
(eleventh respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7390 of 2018
Appeal No 9804 of 2018
Appeal No 9806 of 2018
SC No 4392 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 135; [2018] QSC 182; [2018] QSC 189 (Bond J)

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Douglas J

ORDERS:

In each appeal:

1.   The appellants are released from paragraph one of the Order made on 26 March 2019 and the undertaking referred to therein to the extent necessary to enable funds held on their behalf in the Big Law Lawyers’ trust account to be withdrawn for the sole purpose of paying the second, third, sixth and tenth respondents their proportionate shares of the proceeds from the Asteron Life Policy as follows:

(a)   $15,022.11 to the tenth respondent;

(b)   $30,044.22 to the second and tenth respondents; and

(c)    $15,022.11 to the third and sixth respondents,

together with, in each instance, interest thereon pursuant to the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 from 10 February 2015 to the date of this order.

2.   As to the costs, including reserved costs, of Proceeding No 4392 of 2015,

(a) The second and third defendants are to pay the plaintiffs’ costs, calculated on the standard basis, up to and including 28 March 2017;

(b) The plaintiffs are to pay the second and third defendants’ costs, calculated on the indemnity basis, from 29 March 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the Court ordered further submissions from the parties with respect to further orders and the costs of the proceeding at first instance – where the respondents enjoyed a measure of success in the proceedings – where the appellants served a written offer to settle the respondents’ claims in full before the first date of the trial which was not accepted – where the offer made by the appellants exceeded the…

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 Hanson v Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd 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: [2019] QCA 207
Decision Date: 4 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hanson v Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd came before the court where the central dispute revolved around the costs associated with civil proceedings in state and territory courts. The appellants, Hanson, sought to challenge the costs orders made by the lower court, specifically the decision to reject a settlement offer made before the trial. The respondents, Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd, had initially enjoyed a degree of success in the proceedings. The appellants had presented a Calderbank offer to settle the respondents' claims in full before the trial, an offer that exceeded the total monetary value of the orders made and the appellants' recoverable costs at that point. The core legal issues before the court were whether the decision to reject the Calderbank offer was unreasonable or imprudent and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The court meticulously reviewed the circumstances surrounding the Calderbank offer and the subsequent costs orders. It found that the appellants had made a genuine offer to settle the entire matter for an amount that exceeded the value of the orders and costs incurred. The court held that the decision to reject this offer was unreasonable. Furthermore, the court assessed the overall progress and conduct of the case, taking into account the respondents' partial success and the appellants' conduct throughout the proceedings. The court concluded that the costs orders made by the lower court were disproportionate and needed adjustment. Consequently, the court ordered that the appellants be released from certain undertakings to facilitate the payment of specific amounts to certain respondents, and it made detailed orders regarding the costs to be borne by each party.

Orders

Orders of the court

In each appeal:

1. The appellants are released from paragraph one of the Order made on 26 March 2019 and the undertaking referred to therein to the extent necessary to enable funds held on their behalf in the Big Law Lawyers’ trust account to be withdrawn for the sole purpose of paying the second, third, sixth and tenth respondents their proportionate shares of the proceeds from the Asteron Life Policy as follows:

(a) $15,022.11 to the tenth respondent;

(b) $30,044.22 to the second and tenth respondents; and

together with, in each instance, interest thereon pursuant to the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 from 10 February 2015 to the date of this order.

2. As to the costs, including reserved costs, of Proceeding No 4392 of 2015,

(a) The second and third defendants are to pay the plaintiffs’ costs, calculated on the standard basis, up to and including 28 March 2017;

(b) The plaintiffs are to pay the second and third defendants’ costs, calculated on the indemnity basis, from 29 March 2017.

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.

CITATION:	Hanson & Anor v Goomboorian Transport Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QCA 207
PARTIES:	In Appeal No 7390 of 2018; Appeal No 9804 of 2018 and Appeal No 9806 of 2018: DOROTHY MAUREEN HANSON (first appellant) NORMAN RICHARD HANSON (second appellant) v GOOMBOORIAN TRANSPORT PTY LTD ACN 011 054 658 (first respondent) J & M LOGHANDLING PTY LTD ACN 011 054 667 (second respondent) BELLING INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 123 710 734 (third respondent) GOOMBOORIAN LOGGING PTY LTD ACN 076 970 995 (fourth respondent) LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ACN 086 875 845 (fifth respondent) EMMERDALE FARMING PTY LTD ACN 151 515 909 (sixth respondent) JILRAY PTY LTD ACN 058 181 463 (seventh respondent) J & M FARMING PTY LTD ACN 086 991 291 (eighth respondent) J & M FARMING PTY LTD and LITTLE YABBA DROUGHTMASTER STUD PTY LTD ABN 89 152 178 639 (ninth respondent) JOHN GERHARD BELLING (tenth respondent) MARLENE ANNE BELLING (eleventh respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7390 of 2018 Appeal No 9804 of 2018 Appeal No 9806 of 2018 SC No 4392 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 135; [2018] QSC 182; [2018] QSC 189 (Bond J)
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Douglas J
ORDERS:	In each appeal: 1. The appellants are released from paragraph one of the Order made on 26 March 2019 and the undertaking referred to therein to the extent necessary to enable funds held on their behalf in the Big Law Lawyers’ trust account to be withdrawn for the sole purpose of paying the second, third, sixth and tenth respondents their proportionate shares of the proceeds from the Asteron Life Policy as follows: (a) $15,022.11 to the tenth respondent; (b) $30,044.22 to the second and tenth respondents; and (c) $15,022.11 to the third and sixth respondents, together with, in each instance, interest thereon pursuant to the *Civil Proceedings Act* 2011 from 10 February 2015 to the date of this order. 2. As to the costs, including reserved costs, of Proceeding No 4392 of 2015, (a) The second and third defendants are to pay the plaintiffs’ costs, calculated on the standard basis, up to and including 28 March 2017; (b) The plaintiffs are to pay the second and third defendants’ costs, calculated on the indemnity basis, from 29 March 2017.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the Court ordered further submissions from the parties with respect to further orders and the costs of the proceeding at first instance – where the respondents enjoyed a measure of success in the proceedings – where the appellants served a written offer to settle the respondents’ claims in full before the first date of the trial which was not accepted – where the offer made by the appellants exceeded the…