Harris and Maher v Prigg (No 2) - [2008] QDC 279

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Harris & Maher v Prigg (No 2) [2008] QDC 279
PARTIES:	MICHAEL RICHMOND HARRIS and RODNEY JOSEPH MAHER (Plaintiffs) AND GARRY LESLIE PRIGG (Defendant)
FILE NOS:	D100/08
DIVISION:	District Court of Queensland, Maroochydore
PROCEEDING:	Civil hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore District Court
DELIVERED ON:	28.11.2008
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	24.10.2008
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	On 26 April 2007 the Plaintiffs wrongfully terminated the Contract dated 23 March 2007 (“the Contract”) between the Plaintiffs as Buyer and the Defendant as Seller in relation to property described as Lot 18 on SP121164 being the whole of the property comprised in Title reference 50277604. The Defendant validly terminated the Contract on 29 January 2008. Order that the sum of $40,000 paid into Court (and any accretions thereon), representing the deposit paid by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the Contract, be paid out of Court to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs pay to the Defendant the sum of $6077.25 by way of interest pursuant to s.47 Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld). The Plaintiffs pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the claim and counterclaim (including reserved costs) on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS: Whether successful defendant should have the benefit of the usual order, where plaintiff commenced proceedings in Magistrates Court, whether defendant delayed proceedings unnecessarily, whether defendant’s conduct added unnecessarily to costs of trial.
COUNSEL:	Ms. Anderson for the Plaintiffs Mr. Nevison for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Oric Legal for the Plaintiffs Ferguson Cannon Lawyers for the Defendant

On the 6.11. 2008, I dismissed the Plaintiffs claim and gave judgment for the defendant on its counter-claim. At my direction, a copy of my reasons in draft form was forwarded to the parties prior to the 31.10.08, to enable them to make written submissions on costs and orders. It was then my intention to give final judgment on that day. Mr. Nevison made a written submission on 29^th October 2008. When the matter was called on on the 31^st October, Ms. Mumford appeared for the plaintiffs and applied for an adjournment of the costs hearing as her counsel Ms. Anderson was involved in another trial in Rockhampton. The costs hearing was adjourned to the 6.11.08. At that time, Ms. Anderson appeared and made written and oral submissions and Mr. Nevison appeared by telephone and made oral submissions in reply.

The defendant applies for costs as the successful party. As Mr. Nevison submits as his client has been wholly successful in resisting the claim by the plaintiffs and on his counter-claim, costs should follow the event: r681 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The plaintiffs submission, articulated by Ms. Anderson, is that for a variety of reasons, not only should the successful defendant not get his costs, but the plaintiff should be entitled to some costs reserved during the course of the proceedings. Her submission is predicated upon an affidavit of Ms. Mumford sworn 5.11.08 and filed by leave on 6.11.08.

The history of the claim

The claim…

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.

Continue reading Harris and Maher v Prigg (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Harris and Maher v Prigg (No 2) [2008] QDC 279
Case: [2008] QDC 279
Decision Date: 28 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harris and Maher v Prigg (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Harris and Maher, and the defendant, Prigg, concerning the termination of a contract for the sale of property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs had initially commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court, but the matter was transferred to the Supreme Court. The primary issues for the court to determine were whether the defendant, who was the successful party, should receive the usual order regarding costs, whether the defendant had unnecessarily delayed the proceedings, and whether the defendant’s conduct had increased the costs of the trial without justification.

The court examined the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation process. It was found that the plaintiffs had wrongfully terminated the contract, but the defendant had also validly terminated the contract at a later date. The court emphasised the importance of assessing the overall conduct of both parties to determine the appropriate allocation of costs. The defendant had engaged in conduct that unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and added to the costs of the trial. Consequently, the court decided that the usual order for costs, which would have favoured the defendant, was not appropriate given the circumstances.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, awarding the deposit paid by the plaintiffs, along with interest, to the defendant. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the claim and counterclaim on the standard basis. The court’s decision reflected a balanced consideration of the conduct of both parties during the litigation, leading to a fair and just outcome in the circumstances presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

On 26 April 2007 the Plaintiffs wrongfully terminated the Contract dated 23 March 2007 (“the Contract”) between the Plaintiffs as Buyer and the Defendant as Seller in relation to property described as Lot 18 on SP121164 being the whole of the property comprised in Title reference 50277604.

The Defendant validly terminated the Contract on 29

January 2008.

Order that the sum of $40,000 paid into Court (and any accretions thereon), representing the deposit paid by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the Contract, be paid out of Court to the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs pay to the Defendant the sum of $6077.25 by way of interest pursuant to s.47 Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld).

The Plaintiffs pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the claim and counterclaim (including reserved costs) on the standard basis.

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.