Howard v Kassim

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Howard v Kassim [2025] QSC 50

PARTIES:

HEATHER ROSEMARY HOWARD

(plaintiff)

v
LEYLA KASSIM

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 14215 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Treston J

ORDER:

I fix the costs of the order made 19 February 2025 in the sum of $9,288.52.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – REGULATED COSTS: GROSS OR FIXED COSTS, LUMP SUM ORDERS OR CAPPING ORDERS AND LIKE MATTERS – where the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment was dismissed and a costs order was made against her – where it was indicated that costs would be fixed and the parties were directed to file material to that effect – where the matter is a simple one – where the defendant has provided reliable material as to the quantum of the costs

Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 292, 687

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] 2 Qd R 298
Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltdv Recycling Development Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QSC 118

COUNSEL:

Plaintiff self-represented
D Topp for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Biggs Fitzgerald Pike for the defendant

1. On 19 February 2025, I dismissed the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment and made an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the plaintiff’s application.  I made further directions that the defendant file and serve an affidavit in support of fixing the costs, accompanied by submissions of not more than two pages.  The plaintiff was ordered to file and serve submissions in reply, regarding the quantum of the defendant’s costs.

2. The defendant filed and served an affidavit and submissions in accordance with the directions.  The plaintiff did not comply with the directions. 

3. The power to fix costs arises under r 687 of the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999 (Qld). Generally, the approach to fixing costs must be logical, fair and reasonable,[1] and must be based on sufficient evidence to arrive at an appropriate sum. The purpose of making such an order is to save parties the time, trouble, delay, expense and aggravation of protracted litigation arising out of the taxation.[2]

   [1]Bespoke Recycling Industries Pty Ltdv Recycling Development Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QSC 118 at [22].

   [2]Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] 2 Qd R 298.

4. In the circumstances, the issues to be determined are firstly, whether the court should fix the costs to be paid pursuant to the costs order.  If the answer is yes, the second step is to determine the amount of those fixed costs.  If the court does not exercise the discretion to order fixed costs, then the issue is, what order should be made on the application.[3]

   [3]Ibid at [16].

5. For the reasons which I set out below, it is…