Hodgens v Williams

[2006] QDC 103

[2006] QDC 103

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3402 of 2004

ROCK ANTHONY HODGENS	Appellant
and
ANDREW ROSS WILLIAMS	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 28/04/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Justices Regulation 2004 - counsel's fees at trial unsuccessfully claimed as outlays over and above scale costs in defendant's successful appeal

HIS HONOUR:  I am regretful that it has taken so long for this matter to reach finality.  This is attributable to the intervention of the summer vacation and other difficulties and distractions.

The Court has, on the 21st of October last year, made an order allowing Mr Hodgens' appeal.  What was left outstanding, even after argument on the 21st of October 2005 was the incidence of costs.

Ms Cuthbert for the successful appellant was given the opportunity to argue that counsel's fees of the protracted hearing before the Magistrate could and should be allowed as outlays over and above the conventional provision which calls up some scale items for lawyers' fees.

After her submissions were received Mr Hungerford-Symes supplied a detailed response dated and filed the 10th of January 2006 which mounts an unanswerable case, in my opinion, that counsel's fees must be treated as part and parcel of the amounts otherwise allowed for legal fees. Mr Hungerford-Symes' submission urged the Court to revisit the views expressed on 21st October 2005 as to whether Mr Hodgens ought to be awarded costs at all. Assuming it was open to him to urge that on the Court, I am not persuaded by the case he mounted. I record his references to the Justices Regulation 2004 (Part 2 of which is the source of the costs order foreshadowed on 2nd October 2005). Section 2 is: "An item in Part 2 covers all professional legal work, even if the work is done by more than 1 lawyer."

The outcome is that I adhere to what was proposed in relation to the costs of the trial which means that the Court will, as part of its orders on the appeal, order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the trial fixed in the amount of $4,250.  It is not open to the Court to allow him any costs of the appeal.

‑‑‑‑‑