Ide Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hale's Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2)

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ide Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hale’s Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] QDC 104

PARTIES:

IDE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

ACN 080 450 657

(plaintiff)

and

HALES ENGINEERING PTY LTD

ACN 010 924 731

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D23 of 2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

7 May 2015

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

The defendant is to pay 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or to be assessed upon the standard basis and by reference to Magistrates Court Scale G

CATCHWORDS 

PROCEDURE – COSTS  – where plaintiff was ultimately successful  – where defendant had some success – whether no costs order should be made on the basis of respective success on separate issues –  whether to award costs having regard to the plaintiff’s more substantial success, but taking account of the degree of success and amount recovered

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 681 and r 684.

Alborn & Ors v Stephens & Ors [2010] QCA 58.

Hughes v Western Australian Association (Inc) (1986) ATPR 40 – 748

Mio Art Pty Ltd v Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd & Ors (no 3) [2013] QSC 95

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1980) 193 CLR 72

Sochorova v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] QCA 152

COUNSEL:

A D Suthers, solicitor, for the plaintiff

C S Harding for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Suthers Lawyers for the plaintiff

Baker O’Brien Toll Solicitors for the defendant

1. On 7 May 2015, judgment in this matter was delivered for the plaintiff, in the sum of $34,281.24. That sum comprised an amount assessed for damages at $20,481.98 and interest in the amount of $13,799.26.  Written reasons for the determination as to damages were then published and reasons were provided orally and in respect of the only issue that remained in contention as to an award of interest, being as to the period over which interest would be allowed.

1. Submissions were also received as to the issue of costs. The plaintiff submitted that it should have its costs on the basis of the application of Magistrates Court Scale G, following the event of its success of recovery of damages on its claim.

1. The defendant pointed to the issues that were involved in the proceedings and the different outcomes as to those issues. Although it was correctly pointed out that there were three main issues, including the defendant’s counter claim, it was accepted that because this claim was ultimately not required to be determined because of the concession that it be effectively taken into account in the determination of the plaintiff’s damages, the issue as to the counter claim was effectively subsumed into the remaining issues and therefore added little to the proceedings.

1. Accordingly it was contended for the defendant, that there were effectively two issues in the litigation and effectively two events in the proceedings, with each party having effectively equal…