Jennings v Jennings (No. 2)
[2025] QDC 23
•12 March 2025
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Jennings & Anor v Jennings (No. 2) [2025] QDC 23
PARTIES:
JASMIN NICOLE JENNINGS
(First Plaintiff)
And
J JENNINGS SERVICES PTY LTD
(Second Plaintiff)
v
ALISHA LOUISE JENNINGS
(Defendant)FILE NO:
BD No 3047/24
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
12 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
JUDGE:
Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:
1. The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the defendant’s amended application filed 27 November 2024 and of the plaintiffs’ application filed 2 December 2024.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where defendant brought an application to strike out a cause of action– where parts of the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim were struck out – where parties invited to make submissions on costs – whether costs should follow the event
LEGISLATION:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
COUNSEL:
Amerena LV for the defendant/applicant
SOLICITORS: Miller A, solicitor with Miller Stockhill Lawyers for the plaintiffs/respondents
Fit Lawyers for the defendant/applicant
Reasons for Decision
On 26 February 2025 my substantive judgment and reasons were delivered in relation to that part of the defendant’s amended application filed 27 November 2024 seeking orders in relation to striking out part of the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim. A decision in relation to that part of the defendant’s application had been adjourned when the application was heard before the court on 2 December 2024.
In giving my substantive judgment, as had been requested by the defendant in the amended application, orders were made striking out the paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim. The effect of the orders made was that the second plaintiffs’ sole cause of action was struck out and no leave was granted to replead.
At the hearing of the application on 2 December 2024, orders had been made for the plaintiffs to provide each of the further and better particulars, as requested by the defendant in the amended application.
The result of the orders made meant that the defendant’s amended application was wholly successful, and the plaintiffs’ application to amend the claim filed 2 December 2024 was unsuccessful.
In giving my substantive judgment, I had indicated that I considered that costs on a standard basis should follow the event but that I would consider any submissions should the parties contend otherwise.
Submissions filed on behalf of the defendant supported the order as to costs proposed.
The new solicitors now appointed to act on behalf of the plaintiffs since the hearing of the applications before me in December 2024 submit that the court, in the exercise of its discretion, should make an order for the costs of the applications to be costs in the cause.
I do not accept the submissions made. I do not accept that by the terms of my judgment it could be said that the first plaintiff is likely to succeed in her claim. Rather, given the early stage at which the application was brought, prior to any defence having been filed, it was appropriate for the court to determine the defendant’s amended application on the basis that the allegations made by the plaintiffs were true. The court was simply proceeding to determine the application on the terms most favourable to the plaintiffs.
Further, the fact that the application raised a complex legal issue is no reason for an order of costs not to follow the event, particularly in circumstances where it was also found that the current pleading was defective.
The appropriate order is that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the defendant’s amended application filed 27 November 2024 and of the plaintiffs’ application filed 2 December 2024.
0
0
0