(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:
Application for Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
30 September 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
Heard on the papers
JUDGE:
Philip McMurdo J
ORDER:
The applicant is ordered to pay to the respondents in each application their costs of the application, including any reserved costs, to be assessed upon the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the applicant’s applications were entirely unsuccessful and there was no basis for departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event – where the applications were unnecessarily prolonged by the applicant – where the applicant’s submissions contained many legal flaws and ignored the well-established limitations upon the review by courts of the discretionary decisions of costs assessors, which significantly prolonged her arguments – where the applicant was ordered to pay to the respondents their costs of the applications, assessed upon the indemnity basis
The applicant/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf
Wrightway Legal for the first respondent/seventh defendant and second respondent/eighth defendant
The applicant was the plaintiff in a proceeding which was tried over 10 days in this court and in which she was entirely unsuccessful.[1] The trial judge ordered her to pay to the defendants their costs of the proceeding upon the indemnity basis.[2] She unsuccessfully appealed the principal judgment and was ordered to pay the costs of the other parties to the appeal upon the standard basis.[3]
Costs statements for both the trial and the appeal were served. She made extensive objections. Indeed the assessor noted that she had objected to each and every item in the costs statement relating to the trial. Nevertheless, she enjoyed some substantial success in having amounts which had been claimed in the statements reduced.
She applied to review each assessment. I heard those applications on 14 April 2015. The hearing occupied most of the day.…
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 (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hunter v Hunter (No 3) [2015] QSC 277
Case
[2015] QSC 277
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Hunter v Hunter (No 3), the case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the allocation of costs incurred during the proceedings, specifically regarding the applicant's unsuccessful applications and the length to which they were pursued despite their lack of merit. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis, despite the general rule that costs follow the event.
The legal issues before the court involved whether the applicant's applications were entirely unsuccessful and whether there were any grounds for departing from the general rule of costs following the event. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicant's submissions contained significant legal flaws and whether they ignored established limitations on judicial review of discretionary decisions of costs assessors, which may have unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings. The court concluded that the applications were entirely unsuccessful and that the applicant's actions and arguments had significantly prolonged the proceedings, justifying a departure from the general rule.
In its reasoning, the court noted that the applicant's applications had no merit and were entirely unsuccessful. The court further found that the applicant's submissions contained numerous legal flaws and ignored well-established limitations on the review of discretionary decisions by costs assessors, which contributed to the unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings. As a result, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the applications on an indemnity basis. This decision was based on the applicant's conduct and the need to ensure that parties do not unnecessarily prolong proceedings that have no reasonable prospect of success.
The final orders of the court mandated that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of each application, including any reserved costs, assessed on an indemnity basis. This outcome reflects the court's approach to ensuring that parties are held accountable for unnecessarily prolonging proceedings and to deter similar conduct in future cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant is ordered to pay to the respondents in each application their costs of the application, including any reserved costs, to be assessed upon the indemnity basis.