Hutson v G8 Education Ltd

Case [2025] QSC 107

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hutson v G8 Education Ltd [2025] QSC 107

PARTIES:

JENNIFER JOAN HUTSON

(applicant)

v
G8 EDUCATION LIMITED

(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 12263 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Wilson J

ORDER:

The respondent pay 85% of the applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS GENERALLY – STANDARD COSTS – where the applicant and respondent entered into a Deed of Access, Insurance and Indemnity requiring the respondent to advance to the applicant legal costs “reasonably incurred or expected to be incurred” – where the Court found that the Deed required the respondent to advance payments to the applicant in respect of prospective legal costs reasonably expected to be incurred – where the Court found that the obligation of the respondent was not limited to costs which were reasonable – where the Court found that any condition imposed by the respondent under cl 4.3(b) of the Deed must be consistent with its obligations under cl 4.3(a) of the Deed –  where the Court found that two of the three terms of the Deed were inconsistent with the Deed –  whether the respondent must pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681

Alborn v Stephens [2010] QCA 58

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Swainson [2011] QCA 179

BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Kappel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64

Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25

Day v Humphrey [2018] QCA 321

Gladstone Area Water Board v AJ Lucas Operations Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 52

Hutson v G8 Education Ltd [2024] QSC 319

McDermott v Robinson Helicopter (No 2) [2015] 1 Qd R 295

Sequel Drill and Blast Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Crushers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] QCA 239

Speets Investments Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 039

Tabtill Pty Ltd v Creswick [2012] QCA 078

Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen (No 3) [2015] QSC 164

COUNSEL:

P O’Higgins with K Grimshaw for the applicant

S D McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

RHR Legal for the applicant

Allens for the respondent

Introduction

  1. The applicant, Jennifer Hutson, is a former director of the respondent, G8 Education Ltd.

  2. On 24 March 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a Deed of Access, Insurance and Indemnity.

  3. Pursuant to this Deed, the applicant claimed legal costs for defending criminal proceedings and the respondent funded her legal representation. In correspondence between the parties, the respondent sought to impose conditions on the advancement of legal funds, which the applicant resisted.

  4. The applicant filed an originating application seeking declaratory relief in relation to three issues.

  5. The first declaration sought related to the proper construction of the Deed and is summarised as follows:

    (a)the respondent was obliged to advance funds for legal costs that Ms Hutson “reasonably expects”…

Continue reading Hutson v G8 Education Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hutson v G8 Education Ltd [2025] QSC 107
Case
[2025] QSC 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hutson v G8 Education Ltd involved the interpretation of a Deed of Access, Insurance and Indemnity, which required the respondent, G8 Education Ltd, to advance to the applicant, Hutson, legal costs that were reasonably incurred or expected to be incurred. The central dispute was whether G8 Education Ltd was obligated to pay the applicant's legal costs on the standard basis, as determined by the Court.

The legal issues before the Court centred on the interpretation of the Deed, specifically clauses 4.3(a) and 4.3(b). Clause 4.3(a) required G8 Education Ltd to advance payments to Hutson for prospective legal costs that were reasonably expected to be incurred. Clause 4.3(b) stipulated that any condition imposed by G8 Education Ltd must be consistent with its obligations under clause 4.3(a). The Court needed to determine if the respondent's obligation to pay prospective costs was limited to those deemed reasonable and whether any conditions imposed by G8 Education Ltd were consistent with its obligations under the Deed.

The Court found that G8 Education Ltd was required to advance payments to Hutson for prospective legal costs that were reasonably expected to be incurred, and that this obligation was not limited to costs which were reasonable. Additionally, any conditions imposed by G8 Education Ltd under clause 4.3(b) must be consistent with its obligations under clause 4.3(a). The Court concluded that two of the three terms of the Deed were inconsistent with these obligations, leading to the finding that G8 Education Ltd must pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.

The Court ordered that G8 Education Ltd pay 85% of Hutson's costs of the proceeding on the standard basis, to be assessed. This outcome was based on the interpretation that the Deed required G8 Education Ltd to cover a broader range of costs than initially argued by the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay 85% of the applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis to be assessed.

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.