Keeley v Horton
Case
•
[2016] QCA 253
•7 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Keeley v Horton [2016] QCA 253
[2016] QCA 253
7 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Keeley v Horton, the appeal involved complex issues related to the calculation of interest on damages, the rate of interest, and the assessment of costs in civil proceedings. The primary dispute centred on the time from which interest should run on a judgment, whether the period of an adjournment should be excluded from the calculation, and the appropriate rate of interest. Additionally, the court considered the implications of a formal offer of compromise and the appropriateness of awarding indemnity costs in light of the appeal's outcome.
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
-
Interest on Judgments
-
Indemnity Certificate
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Keeley v Horton [2016] QCA 253
Most Recent Citation
Built Qld Pty Limited v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2023] QCA 140
Cases Citing This Decision
32
State of Queensland v Olssen
[2023] QSC 223
Bankier v Hap2 Pty Ltd (No 4)
[2019] QSC 198
Cases Cited
24
Statutory Material Cited
4
Keeley & Ors v Horton & Anor (No 2)
[2014] QDC 260
Keeley v Horton
[2016] QCA 68
Mules v Ferguson
[2015] QCA 77