Leach & Leach (as personal representatives of the estate of Irene Clare Leach) v. Leach; Leach (as personal representative of the estate of Alan John Leach) v Leach

[2007] QCA 315

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Leach & Leach (as personal representatives of the estate of Irene Clare Leach) v Leach; Leach (as personal representative of the estate of Alan John Leach) v Leach [2007] QCA 315
PARTIES:	STEPHEN ALAN LEACH as personal representative of the estate of IRENE CLARE LEACH (first applicant/first respondent) MARK FREDERICK LEACH as personal representative of the estate of IRENE CLARE LEACH (second applicant/second respondent) v JEFFERY FRANCIS LEACH (respondent/appellant)
STEPHEN ALAN LEACH as personal representative of the estate of ALAN JOHN LEACH (applicant/respondent) v JEFFERY FRANCIS LEACH (respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 50 of 2007 Appeal No 967 of 2007 SC No 246 of 2006 SC No 247 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application to Strike Out – Further Order
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 5 April 2007 Further Order delivered 28 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 March 2007
JUDGES:	Keane and Holmes JJA and Douglas J Judgment of the Court
FURTHER	1. Assessment of costs pursuant to the orders of this Court of
ORDER:	5 April 2007 to proceed before the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns 2. Appellant to pay costs of application to be assessed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – whether assessment of costs of appeal and application should be heard by Registrar of Supreme Court at Cairns – whether Court should make order in respect of costs of present application
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf D P Morzone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Williams Graham Carman for the respondent

1. THE COURT: On 5 April 2007, this Court (then constituted by Williams JA, Keane JA and Douglas J) struck out the appeals by Jeffery Leach against the orders of Jones J of 29 November 2006.[1] In each appeal, this Court also ordered that Jeffery Leach pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and application assessed on an indemnity basis.

   [1]            Leach (as personal representative of the estate of Alan John Leach) v Leach [2007] QCA 117; Leach & Leach (as personal representatives of the estate of Irene Clare Leach) [2007] QCA 118.

2. The successful parties now seek an order that the assessment of the costs recoverable by them pursuant to that order be heard by the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns rather than in Brisbane.

3. In support of that application, it is said that Cairns is the Registry closest to all parties so that considerations of convenience and the saving of expense favour granting the application. The application is also supported by the consideration that the assessment of costs in the proceedings at first instance will occur before the Registrar in Cairns. There is said to be considerable complexity in the matters so that it would be desirable that the costs assessment in each matter proceed before the same Registrar.

4. Jeffery Leach is presently in custody at Lotus Glen Prison. He has been afforded ample opportunity to make submissions in writing in response to the application. He has not identified any prejudice to him which would ensue from granting the application.

5. In these circumstances, we consider that we should grant the application for a change of venue for the assessment of the costs the subject of this Court's orders of 5 April 2007.

6. A further order is sought that this Court make an order in respect of the costs incurred on this application by ordering that they be paid on the indemnity basis fixed at $1,071.50.

7. This Court would be disposed to accede to this application were it not for two matters. The first is that Jeffery Leach seems to oppose this course: Jeffery Leach represents himself and is understandably at a disadvantage. While that disadvantage is no reason why the costs assessment process should not proceed, it is a reason why he should not be denied the close review of the costs assessment in respect of this application which can be provided by assessment by the Registrar. Secondly, the Registrar at Cairns will, in accordance with our order, be required to assess the costs in the related matters to which we have referred. The applicants will suffer little prejudice if the Registrar at Cairns assesses the costs of this application as well; indeed, that is probably the more efficient course.

8. Accordingly, we order that the assessment of costs pursuant to the orders of this Court of 5 April 2007 proceed before the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns. We further order that the appellant pay the costs of this application to be assessed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns.