SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Keeley & Ors v Horton & Anor [2016] QCA 253
PARTIES:
WILLIAM IAN KEELEY
LEANNE FAYE KEELEY
(first appellants)
MARINE WAREHOUSE PTY LTD
ACN 066 954 112
(second appellant)
v
ROBERT WILLIAM HORTON
DESLEY MARGARET HORTON
(respondents)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 12298 of 2014
DC No 3231 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal – Further Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane – [2014] QDC 260DELIVERED ON:
7 October 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
Written submissions dated 5, 6 and 21 April 2016
JUDGES:
Holmes CJ and Peter Lyons and Burns JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
The Court orders that:
1. The respondents pay to the first appellants interest on damages pursuant to s 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) in the sum of $87,725.65;
2. The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the trial (including reserved costs) to be calculated on the indemnity basis and assessed on the District Court scale of costs;
3. The respondents pay the first appellants’ costs of and incidental to their application for leave to appeal and the appeal to be calculated on the standard basis;
4. The second appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to its application for leave to appeal to be calculated on the standard basis;
5. The respondents be granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) in respect of the first appellants’ application for leave to appeal and appeal.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS – TIME FROM WHICH INTEREST RUNS – where the first appellants succeeded on appeal – where in the court below the appellants sought an adjournment on Day 3 of the trial – where the trial resumed after a period of 122 days – where the respondent submitted that the adjournment and subsequent delay were solely attributable to the appellants – where both sides took advantage of the adjournment to remodel their pleadings and gather evidence – whether interest should be awarded from the date when the cause of action arose or from the date when the proceeding commenced – whether the period of 122 days should be excluded from the calculation of interest
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS – RATE – where the first appellants succeeded on appeal – where the respondent submitted that a rate of five per cent per annum more closely reflected interest rates over the period of the claim – where no evidence was advanced regarding the prevailing commercial rates of interest over the period in question – whether interest should be awarded at a rate other than the rates prescribed for default judgments
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS –…
Continue reading Keeley v Horton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Keeley v Horton [2016] QCA 253
- Case
- [2016] QCA 253
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether interest on the judgment should commence from the date the cause of action arose or from the date the proceeding was commenced, as well as whether the period of the adjournment should be excluded from the calculation. Furthermore, the court had to decide on the correct rate of interest to be applied, considering the absence of evidence regarding prevailing commercial rates. Finally, the court examined the implications of the appellants' formal offer of compromise and the entitlement to indemnity costs under the circumstances.
The court ruled that interest should be calculated from the date the cause of action arose and that the period of the adjournment should not be excluded from the calculation. The court determined that the statutory rate of interest should apply, rejecting the respondent's submission for a higher rate. In relation to costs, the court found that the appellants were entitled to indemnity costs of the trial, while the costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal were to be assessed on the standard basis. The court also exercised its discretion to grant the respondents an indemnity certificate in respect of the costs of the appellants' application for leave to appeal and the appeal.
The court's orders included the payment of interest on damages, costs of the trial on an indemnity basis, costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal on the standard basis, and the granting of an indemnity certificate to the respondents.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
1. The respondents pay to the first appellants interest on damages pursuant to s 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) in the sum of $87,725.65;
2. The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of and incidental to the trial (including reserved costs) to be calculated on the indemnity basis and assessed on the District Court scale of costs;
3. The respondents pay the first appellants’ costs of and incidental to their application for leave to appeal and the appeal to be calculated on the standard basis;
4. The second appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to its application for leave to appeal to be calculated on the standard basis;
5. The respondents be granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) in respect of the first appellants’ application for leave to appeal and appeal.
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.