JTD v PDL (No. 4) - [2023] QDC 12

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JTD v PDL (No. 4) [2023] QDC 12

PARTIES:

JTD

(plaintiff)

v

PDL

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

[Redacted]

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Determination of costs

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

Decided on written submissions without oral hearing

JUDGE:

Cash DCJ

ORDER:

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application filed on 15 July 2022 in the fixed amount of $6,500

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the defendant brought an application to disallow amendments to the pleadings in a defamation proceeding – where two of the four amendments were disallowed on the basis that each amendment introduced a new cause of action which was time barred – whether the general rule as to costs should be followed where both parties have partial success

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681

SOLICITORS:

Stonegate Legal for the plaintiff/respondent
Aitken Whyte Legal for the defendant/applicant

On 20 January 2023 I made orders and gave reasons in the defendant’s application to disallow some of the plaintiff’s amendments to the pleadings.[1] The result was that the defendant succeeded in two of her four challenges to the amendments. I indicated I would hear the parties as to the costs of the application. Both parties were content for the matter to be decided on written submissions without oral hearing. To that end the defendant filed written submissions on 25 January 2023 and the plaintiff did the same on 31 January 2023. The defendant seeks an order that the plaintiff pay at least 50% of her costs of the application and asks that those costs be fixed. The plaintiff submits that the appropriate order is to make the costs of the application the parties’ costs in the proceeding.
[1]JTD v PDL (No. 3) [2023] QDC 5.
To assess the parties’ respective positions, it is necessary to say a little more about the application. The proceeding is for defamation and was commenced by claim. In his statement of claim, the plaintiff identified five alleged defamatory publications. The statement of claim has been through several iterations. In issue in this application was the third further amended statement of claim. The defendant challenged amendments to the pleadings concerning the second, third, fourth and fifth alleged defamatory publications. Each was said by the defendant to have introduced a new cause of action in circumstances where that cause of action was time-barred by the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). I concluded that the amendments to the pleadings concerning the second and third alleged defamatory publications did introduce new causes of actions and should be disallowed. I was not so persuaded in relation to the amendments to the to the fourth and fifth publications.
In coming to this conclusion, I indicated that the changes to the substance and detail of the second and third publications were significant. I also observed in relation to the fifth alleged publication that the earlier pleading…

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.

Continue reading JTD v PDL (No. 4)

Details

AGLC: JTD v PDL (No. 4) [2023] QDC 12
Case: [2023] QDC 12
Decision Date: 13 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, JTD was the plaintiff and PDL was the defendant in a defamation proceeding. The defendant applied to disallow certain amendments to the pleadings. Of the four amendments, two were disallowed because they introduced new causes of action which were time barred. The issue before the court was whether the general rule that costs follow the event should apply when both parties achieved partial success.

The court held that the general rule should apply and that the plaintiff should pay the defendant’s costs of the application. The court held that this was the appropriate outcome in circumstances where both parties achieved partial success and where the defendant’s application to disallow the amendments resulted in the plaintiff having to incur additional costs. The court held that this was consistent with the principle that costs should follow the event, and that the defendant’s success in having two of the four amendments disallowed was sufficient to warrant an order for costs.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application filed on 15 July 2022 in the fixed amount of $6,500. The court held that this was a reasonable amount of costs given the nature of the application and the partial success achieved by both parties. The court held that the order for costs was necessary to ensure that the defendant was not left to bear the burden of costs that were incurred as a result of the plaintiff’s unsuccessful amendments.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application filed on 15 July 2022 in the fixed amount of $6,500

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:	JTD v PDL (No. 4) [2023] QDC 12
PARTIES:	JTD (plaintiff)
v
PDL (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	[Redacted]
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Determination of costs
DELIVERED ON:	13 February 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	Decided on written submissions without oral hearing
JUDGE:	Cash DCJ
ORDER:	The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application filed on 15 July 2022 in the fixed amount of $6,500
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the defendant brought an application to disallow amendments to the pleadings in a defamation proceeding – where two of the four amendments were disallowed on the basis that each amendment introduced a new cause of action which was time barred – whether the general rule as to costs should be followed where both parties have partial success
LEGISLATION:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681
SOLICITORS:	Stonegate Legal for the plaintiff/respondent Aitken Whyte Legal for the defendant/applicant