Hunter v Hunter - [2015] QSC 188

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hunter v Hunter & Anor [2015] QSC 188

PARTIES:

CORNELIA HUNTER

(applicant/plaintiff)

v
JOHN MALCOLM HUNTER

(first respondent/seventh defendant)
MIRONESCO PTY LTD in its own capacity and as trustee of HUNTER FAMILY TRUST

(second respondent/eighth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 4124 of 2007

CA No 260 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 April 2015

JUDGE:

Philip McMurdo J

ORDER:

Delivered ex tempore on 14 April 2015:

1. The application for an adjournment be refused.

2. The application in respect of the cost assessment in CA 260 of 2013 be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – TAXATION – REVIEW – where the applicant challenged an assessment of the respondents’ costs in relation to an order made by the Court of Appeal regarding the costs of the appeal – application refused

PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – ADJOURNMENT – application for adjournment

Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation and The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621, cited
Hill v Peel (1870) LR 5 CP 172, cited

House v the King (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf

M Wright for the first respondent/seventh defendant and second respondent/eighth defendant

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf

Wrightway Legal for the first respondent/seventh defendant and second respondent/eighth defendant

HIS HONOUR: The immediate question is whether, as the applicant plaintiff requests, the hearing should be adjourned until after October this year, when a case will be heard by the Family Court between the applicant and the present, seventh, defendant. The applicant hopes that by those proceedings she will receive sufficient funds to enable her to be legally represented in this proceeding. It is desirable that any party in a case in this court be legally represented, but that is not the only consideration affecting whether the court should now proceed to hear the applications, or instead, adjourn them.

A further consideration is that the applicant does appear to be in less than perfect health. She does appear to have something in the nature of flu symptoms, but her principal reason for seeking the adjournment is the one I first mentioned.

The present applications have been before this court for some time. They came before me in the applications list last August when they had to be adjourned, as the respondent suggested, so that the applicant could comply with the relevant rules, and, in particular, so that she could file an amended application which set out her grounds, as well as attaching the cost assessor’s reasons. The matter was again before the court in the applications list last October when it was given – when it was adjourned to the civil list.

The position has been reached where the litigation between these parties, at least in this court, should be finalised, if that can be done without injustice. It seems to me…

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 Hunter v Hunter

Details

AGLC: Hunter v Hunter [2015] QSC 188
Case: [2015] QSC 188
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Hunter v Hunter case involved a dispute over the costs associated with an appeal decision made by the Court of Appeal. The applicant sought to challenge the assessment of costs levied against the respondents in relation to an order made by the Court of Appeal regarding the costs of the appeal. Additionally, the applicant filed an application for an adjournment, which was subsequently denied. The Court had to decide on the refusal of the adjournment and the assessment of the respondents' costs in the appeal process.

The court addressed the legal issues by first considering whether the application for an adjournment was justified. The application was denied, indicating that the court did not find sufficient grounds to warrant a postponement of the proceedings. The court then proceeded to review the assessment of the respondents' costs. The applicant contested the costs levied against the respondents, arguing that they were excessive or improperly calculated. However, the court found no merit in the applicant's challenge and upheld the original assessment of costs.

The court's reasoning was based on a detailed examination of the procedural rules and the specific circumstances of the case. Regarding the adjournment, the court considered the necessity and the potential impact on the proceedings. It concluded that an adjournment was not warranted, as the case could proceed without any additional delay. Concerning the cost assessment, the court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, ultimately finding that the costs were correctly assessed according to the legal standards and principles applicable to the case. As a result, the application to review the cost assessment was dismissed.

In summary, the court's final orders were delivered ex tempore on 14 April 2015. The application for an adjournment was refused, and the application in respect of the cost assessment in CA 260 of 2013 was also refused. These decisions upheld the procedural integrity of the case and maintained the original cost assessment, ensuring that the legal process proceeded without unnecessary delays or unwarranted cost challenges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 14 April 2015:

1. The application for an adjournment be refused.

2. The application in respect of the cost assessment in CA 260 of 2013 be refused.

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:	Hunter v Hunter & Anor [2015] QSC 188
PARTIES:	CORNELIA HUNTER (applicant/plaintiff) v JOHN MALCOLM HUNTER (first respondent/seventh defendant) MIRONESCO PTY LTD in its own capacity and as trustee of HUNTER FAMILY TRUST (second respondent/eighth defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 4124 of 2007 CA No 260 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 April 2015
JUDGE:	Philip McMurdo J
ORDER:	Delivered ex tempore on 14 April 2015: 1. The application for an adjournment be refused. 2. The application in respect of the cost assessment in CA 260 of 2013 be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – TAXATION – REVIEW – where the applicant challenged an assessment of the respondents’ costs in relation to an order made by the Court of Appeal regarding the costs of the appeal – application refused PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – ADJOURNMENT – application for adjournment Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation and The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621, cited Hill v Peel (1870) LR 5 CP 172, cited House v the King (1936) 55 CLR 499, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf M Wright for the first respondent/seventh defendant and second respondent/eighth defendant
SOLICITORS:	The applicant/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf Wrightway Legal for the first respondent/seventh defendant and second respondent/eighth defendant