Leeson v Jackson

Case [2025] QDC 169

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Leeson v Jackson & Others [2025] QDC 169

PARTIES:

DARREN ANCEL LEESON

(First plaintiff)

AND

SCOTT ANTHONY JACKSON

(Second plaintiff)

DALE ROBINSON

(Third plaintiff)

v

LYNGOLD PTY LTD t/as ZAMMITS REARING AND SPELLING FARM ACN 010718126

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1686/24

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 September 2025

JUDGE:

Grigg DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The first and third plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the review hearing of 29 September 2025 on an indemnity basis

2.   The plaintiffs’ solicitors, Wright Law, are, within seven days of receipt of these reasons, to provide to the first and third plaintiffs a copy of these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – where first, second and third plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendant for damages for breach of contract, or alternatively, negligence – where errors were caused by the plaintiffs’ solicitor in filed material on the Court file – where unnecessary interlocutory proceedings were caused as a result of these errors – where the defendant seeks the plaintiffs pay the costs of the interlocutory hearing on an indemnity basis and/or the plaintiffs’ solicitor repay those costs under rule 690 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – where costs usually follow the event – whether the conduct on behalf of the first and third plaintiffs, and/or their representative, is unreasonable enough to depart from the ordinary order as to costs.

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 69, 690, 702, 704

CASES:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 598

Bale v Kimberley Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1009
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Oshlack v Richard River Council [1998] HCA 11 (1998) 193 CLR 72
Smits v Tabone [2007] QCA 337
The Beach Retreat Pty Ltd v Mooloolaba Marina Ltd [2009] QSC 84; [2009] 2 Qd R 356

Wallis v Hunt [2019] QDC 33

SOLICITORS:

Wright Legal for the first and third plaintiffs

Shand Taylor Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

  1. On 20 June 2024, the first, second and third plaintiffs (collectively, the plaintiffs) commenced proceedings against the defendant for damages for breach of contract, or alternatively, negligence. At the time proceedings were commenced, all three plaintiffs were represented by Bennett & Philp Lawyers.

  2. At some point, the first and third plaintiffs changed their representation and, from at least 27 September 2024, were represented by Alexander Law. The solicitor in the then-employment of Alexander Law who had carriage of the matter was Mr Jacob O’Shaughnessy. A notice of change of solicitors was filed on 8 October 2024 confirming the Alexander Law acted on behalf of the first and third plaintiffs. Then, on 19 November 2024, a notice was lodged informing the Court and the parties that the second plaintiff was now acting in…

Continue reading Leeson v Jackson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Leeson v Jackson [2025] QDC 169
Case
[2025] QDC 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Leeson v Jackson, the first, second and third plaintiffs pursued legal action against the defendant, seeking damages for breach of contract or negligence. The proceedings were marred by errors introduced by the plaintiffs' solicitor in the documentation filed with the court. These errors led to unnecessary interlocutory proceedings, prompting the defendant to seek indemnity costs from the plaintiffs and reimbursement from the plaintiffs' solicitor, Wright Law, pursuant to rule 690 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The court was required to determine whether the conduct of the plaintiffs or their representative was sufficiently unreasonable to warrant a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court considered the principles governing indemnity costs and the circumstances under which a departure from the usual cost order may be justified. It examined the nature and impact of the errors made by the plaintiffs' solicitor and the extent to which these errors contributed to the necessity of the interlocutory proceedings. The court concluded that the conduct of the first and third plaintiffs, and their representative, was unreasonable enough to warrant an indemnity costs order. This decision was based on the significant disruption caused by the errors and the resulting additional costs incurred by the defendant.

Consequently, the court ordered that the first and third plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of the review hearing on an indemnity basis. Additionally, Wright Law, the plaintiffs' solicitor, was directed to provide a copy of the court's reasons to the first and third plaintiffs within seven days of receiving them. This ruling underscores the importance of accuracy and diligence in legal practice and the potential consequences of failing to uphold these standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The first and third plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the review hearing of 29 September 2025 on an indemnity basis

2. The plaintiffs’ solicitors, Wright Law, are, within seven days of receipt of these reasons, to provide to the first and third plaintiffs a copy of these reasons.

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.