Knapman v. Oceanic Beaches Pty Ltd & Ors
[2007] QSC 126
•1 June 2007
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Knapman v Oceanic Beaches Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QSC 126
PARTIES:
STEPHEN LEE KNAPMAN
(Plaintiff)
V
OCEANIC BEACHES PTY LTD (ACN 060 723 159)
(First Defendant)
AND
KELLY DIVE – WHITSUNDAYS
(Second Defendant)
AND
LEONIE EISZELE
(Third Defendant)
AND
ANSETT AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 209 410)
(Fourth Defendant)
AND
HAYMAN RESORT
(Fifth Defendant)
AND
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Sixth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS2337/98
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
Judgment delivered on 20 April 2007
Further order delivered on 1 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 February 2007
Application for costs heard on the papers
JUDGE:
Moynihan J
FURTHER ORDER:
1. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
COSTS
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) 680, 689(1).
COUNSEL:
J McClymont for the plaintiff.
W Campbell for the third defendant.
SOLICITORS:
Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiff.
Herbert Geer & Rundle for the third defendant.
On 20 April for reasons which I then published I dismissed this action for want of prosecution and provided for the exchange of written submissions as to costs.
The third defendant, the successful applicant, seeks her costs of and incidental to the action including the application for dismissal and any reserved costs on a standard basis.
The basis of the dismissal was essentially that the plaintiff’s delay had materially compromised the prospect of a fair trial.
The plaintiff’s explanations for delay in the progress of the action was consistent with his severe injuries and physical and mental consequences suffered in the event giving rise to the cause of action, he had prospects of success.
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) 680(1) requires that costs be determined in accordance with UCPR Ch 17 Pt 2 689(1) which provides to the effect that in these circumstances costs are at the discretion of the court but follow the event unless the court considers another order is more appropriate.
It is submitted for the plaintiff that in the circumstances of this case it is more appropriate that there be no order as to costs.
The relevant circumstances include, in addition to those to which I have just referred, that the plaintiff resides in the United Kingdom, he is seriously and permanently disabled, dependent on others for his day to day care and well being and cannot earn a living.
In the circumstances I make no order as to costs.
0
0
1