Joyce v Gold Coast Blaze Pty Ltd - [2012] QSC 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Joyce v Gold Coast Blaze Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 32

PARTIES:

BRENDAN STEVEN JOYCE
(plaintiff)
v
GOLD COAST BLAZE PTY LTD
ACN 122 467 289

(defendant)

FILE NO:

9548/09

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Costs and interest

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 October 2011 - 10 October 2011

JUDGE:

Peter Lyons J

ORDER:

1. Judgment to include the sum of $45,994.69 for interest up to the date of judgment.

2. Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the action, to include reserved costs, on the indemnity basis

CATCHWORDS:

INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – IN GENERAL – where the Court found in earlier proceeding that the defendant wrongfully repudiated a contract of employment – where plaintiff was awarded $310,316.48 – where leave was given for submissions to be made on interest on the judgement and costs – whether interest award should reflect progressive nature of loss

PROCEDURE – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – where a settlement offer was made by the plaintiff prior to the trial – where offer not accepted and trial proceeded – where the judgment awarded was more than the settlement sum – whether discrepancy between date of repudiation pleaded in plaintiff’s statement of claim and date presented in case at trial constitutes circumstances where it is appropriate to award costs assessed on a standard basis

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rule 360

Fail v Hutton [2003] QSC 291, Considered

COUNSEL:

Plaintiff: DJ Pyle

Defendant: CC Wilson

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff: OMB Lawyers

Defendant: Reichman Lawyers

On 23 December 2011, reasons for judgment in this action were published, with the result that judgment was given for the plaintiff on his claim in the sum of $310,316.48. The parties were given leave to make submissions in relation to interest on the judgment and costs. They did so, and these reasons deal with those issues.

The plaintiff’s claim was for damages for the wrongful repudiation of a contract of employment for a term of four years, commencing on 1 July 2007. I determined that the defendant repudiated the contract at a meeting on 28 January 2009, acceptance of which by the plaintiff brought the contract to an end. The plaintiff was awarded damages for the period for which he was not paid, namely, from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011.

The plaintiff seeks his costs of the action from the defendant on the indemnity basis. On 8 September 2011, he made an offer to settle the action. If the offer had been accepted, he would have been paid the sum of $190,000 inclusive of interest, together with his costs assessed on the standard basis. Relying on r 360 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) and Fail v Hutton,[1] he submits that the court must order the defendant to pay his costs on the indemnity basis, the defendant not showing that another order for costs is appropriate in the…

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 Joyce v Gold Coast Blaze 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: [2012] QSC 32
Decision Date: 29 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Joyce v Gold Coast Blaze Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr. Joyce, sought to recover interest on a judgment debt awarded for wrongful repudiation of a contract of employment. The matter was heard in the Queensland District Court, where the plaintiff was initially awarded $310,316.48. Leave was subsequently granted for submissions to be made on the interest on the judgment debt and costs. The court was required to determine whether the interest award should reflect the progressive nature of the loss incurred by the plaintiff and whether the costs incurred should be assessed on a standard basis due to the settlement offer made by the plaintiff prior to the trial. The defendant argued that the discrepancy between the date of repudiation pleaded in the plaintiff’s statement of claim and the date presented in the case at trial warranted a standard costs assessment.

The court considered the relevant principles governing the recovery of interest on a judgment debt and the assessment of costs in circumstances where a settlement offer had been made. The court found that interest should be awarded to reflect the progressive nature of the loss incurred by the plaintiff, as the wrongfully repudiated contract would have continued to accrue benefits for the plaintiff had it not been for the defendant’s actions. The court also determined that the discrepancy between the date of repudiation pleaded in the statement of claim and the date presented in the case at trial did not constitute circumstances warranting a standard costs assessment. Instead, the court found it appropriate to award costs on the indemnity basis.

In light of the above, the court made orders that the judgment debt should include the sum of $45,994.69 for interest up to the date of judgment. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the action, including reserved costs, on the indemnity basis. This decision provides guidance on the recoverability of interest on a judgment debt and the assessment of costs in circumstances where a settlement offer has been made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment to include the sum of $45,994.69 for interest up to the date of judgment.

2. Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the action, to include reserved costs, on the indemnity basis

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:	Joyce v Gold Coast Blaze Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 32
PARTIES:	BRENDAN STEVEN JOYCE (plaintiff) v GOLD COAST BLAZE PTY LTD ACN 122 467 289 (defendant)
FILE NO:	9548/09
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Costs and interest
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 February 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 October 2011 - 10 October 2011
JUDGE:	Peter Lyons J
ORDER:	1. Judgment to include the sum of $45,994.69 for interest up to the date of judgment. 2. Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the action, to include reserved costs, on the indemnity basis
CATCHWORDS:	INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – IN GENERAL – where the Court found in earlier proceeding that the defendant wrongfully repudiated a contract of employment – where plaintiff was awarded $310,316.48 – where leave was given for submissions to be made on interest on the judgement and costs – whether interest award should reflect progressive nature of loss PROCEDURE – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – where a settlement offer was made by the plaintiff prior to the trial – where offer not accepted and trial proceeded – where the judgment awarded was more than the settlement sum – whether discrepancy between date of repudiation pleaded in plaintiff’s statement of claim and date presented in case at trial constitutes circumstances where it is appropriate to award costs assessed on a standard basis Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rule 360 Fail v Hutton [2003] QSC 291, Considered
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff: DJ Pyle Defendant: CC Wilson
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff: OMB Lawyers Defendant: Reichman Lawyers