Hookey v Manthey (No 2) - [2018] QSC 252

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hookey & Anor v Manthey & Ors (No 2) [2018] QSC 252

PARTIES:

SCOTT GREGORY HOOKEY

(first applicant)

AND

MARETTI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 619 520 115

(second applicant)

V

STEVEN CHARLES MANTHEY

(first respondent)

AND

MICHAEL MANTHEY

(second respondent)

AND

MICHAEL JOHNSTON
(third respondent)

AND

BRENDA MANTHEY
(fourth respondent)

AND

SC MANTHEY PTY LTD
(fifth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 7639 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDERS:

The orders of the Court are:

1.    That the parties bear their own costs of their appearance on 9 August 2018.

2.    That, save as provided in order (1), the applicants should pay 80 percent of the respondents’ costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

3.    That, save as provided in order (1), 20 percent of the applicants’ costs of the application be the applicants’ costs in the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where judgment in the application ordered that the respondents be restrained from dealing with, modifying or in any way altering engine identified in the order, together with some incidental orders, but otherwise did not continue the freezing orders made on an ex parte basis – where the application was previously adjourned with costs reserved – where the applicants contend that the costs of the application for a freezing order and other injunctive relief should be each party’s costs in the proceedings – where the respondents seek the costs of the application – whether costs should follow the event

Order as to affidavit to disclose location of the engine

In paragraph 123 of my reasons,[1] I invited the parties to make submissions as to whether they wish to contend that an order should be made in the nature of a notification order, or an order seeking an affidavit disclosing the location of the engine.
[1][2018] QSC 207.
The applicants do not seek a notification order.
The applicants do seek an order that the first and second respondents be required to file an affidavit as to the location of the engine. The respondents do not oppose an order requiring the first respondent to depose to the location of the engine. The respondents however contend that no order should be made in respect of the second respondent. In that regard, they submit that there was no suggestion that the second respondent had done any of the things pleaded in paragraph 20 of the statement of claim, nor that he had failed to disclose information to the applicants, nor that there was a risk that he would do anything that might frustrate the enforceability of the injunction that has been continued. I accept that to be the case and presently will limit 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 Hookey v Manthey (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: [2018] QSC 252
Decision Date: 6 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hookey v Manthey (No 2), the dispute between the parties involved an application for a freezing order and other injunctive relief, which was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants sought to restrain the respondents from dealing with, modifying or altering a specific engine, with some additional incidental orders. The court had previously adjourned the application with costs reserved. Both parties now contested the allocation of costs, with the applicants arguing that the costs of the application for a freezing order and other injunctive relief should be borne by each party, while the respondents sought to recover the costs of the application. The central legal issue before the court was whether the costs should follow the event, in line with the general principle that costs follow the event.

The court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party usually bears the costs of the proceedings. However, the court also acknowledged the importance of exercising discretion in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the application had been adjourned with costs reserved, and the judgment did not continue the freezing orders made on an ex parte basis. The court found that the applicants were unsuccessful in their main application, which led to the freezing orders not being continued. However, the court recognised that the application had resulted in some incidental orders that were beneficial to the applicants. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to order that the applicants should pay 80 percent of the respondents' costs of the application, with the remaining 20 percent of the applicants' costs being their costs in the proceedings.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs of their appearance on 9 August 2018. Furthermore, the applicants were to pay 80 percent of the respondents' costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis, with the remaining 20 percent of the applicants' costs being their costs in the proceedings. This outcome reflects the court's consideration of both the general principle of costs following the event and the need to exercise discretion in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are:

1. That the parties bear their own costs of their appearance on 9 August 2018.

2. That, save as provided in order (1), the applicants should pay 80 percent of the respondents’ costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

3. That, save as provided in order (1), 20 percent of the applicants’ costs of the application be the applicants’ costs in the proceedings.

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:	Hookey & Anor v Manthey & Ors (No 2) [2018] QSC 252
PARTIES:	SCOTT GREGORY HOOKEY (first applicant) AND MARETTI AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 619 520 115 (second applicant) V STEVEN CHARLES MANTHEY (first respondent) AND MICHAEL MANTHEY (second respondent) AND MICHAEL JOHNSTON (third respondent) AND BRENDA MANTHEY (fourth respondent) AND SC MANTHEY PTY LTD (fifth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 7639 of 2018
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Brown J
ORDERS:	The orders of the Court are: 1. That the parties bear their own costs of their appearance on 9 August 2018. 2. That, save as provided in order (1), the applicants should pay 80 percent of the respondents’ costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis. 3. That, save as provided in order (1), 20 percent of the applicants’ costs of the application be the applicants’ costs in the proceedings.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where judgment in the application ordered that the respondents be restrained from dealing with, modifying or in any way altering engine identified in the order, together with some incidental orders, but otherwise did not continue the freezing orders made on an ex parte basis – where the application was previously adjourned with costs reserved – where the applicants contend that the costs of the application for a freezing order and other injunctive relief should be each party’s costs in the proceedings – where the respondents seek the costs of the application – whether costs should follow the event