Johnson v Fraser Coast Regional Council

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Johnson v Fraser Coast Regional Council [2020] QDC 280

PARTIES:

CLINTON JAMIE JOHNSON
(plaintiff)

v

FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

138 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written Submissions, 30 October 2020

JUDGE:

Loury QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis from 26 November 2015.

2.   The application to certify the costs of two counsel is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – ASSESSMENT OF COSTS – whether to certify costs of two counsel

COUNSEL:

JM Sorbello for the plaintiff
WDP Campbell for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Morton & Morton Solicitors for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendant

1. On 23 October 2020 I gave judgment for the plaintiff in a claim for damages for personal injury, arising from his employment with the defendant.   The parties agree that pursuant to section 316 of the Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 I should order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis from 26 November 2015. 

1. The plaintiff seeks a further order certifying for two counsel in relation to the trial costs.  That order is opposed by the defendant. 

1. Both parties have referred me to the statement of principle of Barwick CJ in Stanley v Phillips[1] where he said that determination of this issue depends upon whether the “the nature and circumstances of the case are such that the services of two counsel are required if the case is to be presented to the court in such a manner that justice can be done between the parties”.   His Honour said:

“The important matter is to recognize that the question is not whether one member of the Bar will present the case better than another. The question for the taxing master is whether the case by reason of any of its features, the volume of material to be handled, the number or character of the witnesses to be examined, the nature or extent of the cross-examination required, the anticipated length of the case, the complexity of its issues of fact or of law, the extent of the preparatory research of fact or of law to be undertaken, the involvement of charges of fraud, or other serious imputations of personal reputation or integrity, the complexity of the required presentation and so on, make it reasonably necessary or proper that the services of two counsel be engaged in order that the court may do justice between the parties.” 

[1](1966) 115 CLR 470 at 479-480.

1. The plaintiff argues that the matter was listed for hearing for five days; the defendant denied liability and pursued a fraud case; and, there were complex questions of causation relating to what injury was suffered and the effect of that on the plaintiff, given his pre-existing injury. 

1. Whilst the trial took place over six days, that was done in order to accommodate the expert witnesses.  Some delay was…