Lakefox Pty Ltd v State of Queensland
[2006] QDC 349
•19 September 2006
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Lakefox Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2006] QDC 349
PARTIES:
LAKEFOX PTY LTD (ACN 010 563 593)
Plaintiff
V
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Defendant
FILE NO/S:
Rockhampton 42/2000
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland, at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
19 September 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
31 August 2006
JUDGE:
Alan Wilson SC, DCJ
ORDER:
Plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs of and incidental to the claim assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:
COSTS - COSTS OF AND INCIDENTAL TO CLAIM – whether costs should follow the event – whether another order more appropriate
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 689
COUNSEL:
P W Hackett for the plaintiff
J B Rolls for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
H Drakos & Co for the plaintiff
Crown Law for the defendant
The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, with reasons, on 31 August 2006. The defendant sought costs on that occasion but the matter was adjourned to enable the plaintiff to consider its position, and decide whether it wished to make any submissions about costs.
Written submissions were received from the defendant. The plaintiff has signified it does not wish to deliver submissions.
Under the UCPR r 689(1) costs of a proceeding are in the discretion of the court, but follow the event unless the court considers another order more appropriate.
As the reasons published on 31 August 2006 show, while the plaintiff’s case on causation and negligence were arguable, it ultimately failed to establish those essential elements. The natural inference is that the usual order will flow.
Nor is there otherwise anything to suggest this is a case in which the court might consider depriving a successful party of its costs (of the kind discussed by McHugh J in Oshlack v Richmond River Council 1998 193 CLR 72, at paras 67-70).
This is, then, a case in which costs should simply follow the event.
0
0
1