Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd - [2016] QSC 133

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd & others [2016] QSC 133

PARTIES:

LIANA RENAE JACKSON
(applicant)
v
ARAWAK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 157 865 195 AS TRUSTEE
(first respondent)
VAULT 8 HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 105 339 759 AS TRUSTEE (RECEIVER & MANAGER APPOINTED AND IN LIQUIDATION)

(second respondent)

CRAIG ANDREW PERRY
(third respondent)
REGISTRAR OF TITLES

(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 7304 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 June 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Philip McMurdo JA

ORDERS:

1. The applicant pay the first respondent its costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, upon the indemnity basis.

2. There be no order for costs between the applicant and the third respondent.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – where the amended originating application was dismissed – where the first respondent seeks its costs on the indemnity basis pursuant to clauses of the loan document and mortgage – whether the first respondent’s costs ought to be upon the indemnity basis

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the third respondent successfully defended the sole claim against him but did not necessarily establish he was in lawful occupation of the subject property – where the third respondent seeks his costs on the standard basis – whether costs ought to be awarded

Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] QSC 57, related
Platinum United II Pty Ltd v Secured Mortgage Management Ltd (in liq) [2011] QCA 229, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the applicant, the applicant’s submissions were heard on the papers

No appearance by the first and third respondents, the first and third respondents’ submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant

No appearance for the first and third respondents

PHILIP McMURDO JA: On 17 March 2016 I gave judgment, dismissing the amended originating application and ordering that the caveat lodged by the applicant be removed.[1] There remained the question of costs which is determined by this judgment.
[1]Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] QSC 57
The respondents filed, as directed, written submissions as to costs on 31 March 2016. However, the applicant Ms Jackson, has made no submission in response. She has been without legal representation since the judgment was given. As the respondents were kept informed, she requested several extensions of time within which to deliver her submissions (if any) as to costs. It appears that she is in poor health and has difficulty in understanding that, irrespective of her ongoing disputes with Mr Perry, it is necessary for her to present now any argument as to why she should not pay the respondents’ costs, and in the case of the first respondent, upon the indemnity basis as it…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QSC 133
Decision Date: 14 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd, the dispute involved an amended originating application which was dismissed. The first respondent, Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd, sought its costs on an indemnity basis as stipulated in certain clauses of the loan document and mortgage. The third respondent, who successfully defended the claim against him, also sought his costs on the standard basis, despite not conclusively proving lawful occupation of the property in question.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the first respondent’s costs should indeed be on the indemnity basis and if the third respondent’s costs should be awarded on the standard basis. The court considered the terms of the loan document and mortgage, as well as the outcomes of the proceedings, to determine the appropriate cost orders.

The court ruled that the first respondent’s costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis, aligning with the specific clauses in the loan document and mortgage. However, the court found no basis to award the third respondent's costs on the standard basis, given that his successful defense did not necessarily establish lawful occupation of the property. The court exercised its discretion carefully, ensuring that the orders reflected the legal principles governing costs in civil proceedings.

The orders made by the court were that the applicant, Jackson, was to pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, on the indemnity basis. No order for costs was made between the applicant and the third respondent. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to specific contractual terms regarding indemnity costs and the cautious application of the standard cost basis in civil proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the first respondent its costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, upon the indemnity basis.

2. There be no order for costs between the applicant and the third respondent.

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:	Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd & others [2016] QSC 133
PARTIES:	LIANA RENAE JACKSON (applicant) v ARAWAK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 157 865 195 AS TRUSTEE (first respondent) VAULT 8 HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 105 339 759 AS TRUSTEE (RECEIVER & MANAGER APPOINTED AND IN LIQUIDATION) (second respondent) CRAIG ANDREW PERRY (third respondent) REGISTRAR OF TITLES (fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 7304 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGE:	Philip McMurdo JA
ORDERS:	1. The applicant pay the first respondent its costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, upon the indemnity basis. 2. There be no order for costs between the applicant and the third respondent.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – where the amended originating application was dismissed – where the first respondent seeks its costs on the indemnity basis pursuant to clauses of the loan document and mortgage – whether the first respondent’s costs ought to be upon the indemnity basis PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the third respondent successfully defended the sole claim against him but did not necessarily establish he was in lawful occupation of the subject property – where the third respondent seeks his costs on the standard basis – whether costs ought to be awarded Jackson v Arawak Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] QSC 57, related Platinum United II Pty Ltd v Secured Mortgage Management Ltd (in liq) [2011] QCA 229, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance by the applicant, the applicant’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance by the first and third respondents, the first and third respondents’ submissions were heard on the papers
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant No appearance for the first and third respondents