Legal Ease Pty Ltd v JW Murphy

[1995] QSC 202

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane  WRT. No. 482  of 1995

Before Mr Justice Mackenzie

[Legal Ease Pty Ltd v. J.W. Murphy & Anor]

BETWEEN:

LEGAL EASE PTY LTD

Applicant

AND:

JOHN WILLIAM MURPHY & PETER BERNARD ALLEN

Respondent

JUDGMENT - MACKENZIE J.

Judgment delivered  25/08/1995

CATCHWORDS:           COSTS - motion for interlocutory injunctive relief.

Counsel:P. McMurdo Q.C. for applicant

S. Couper Q.C. for respondent

Solicitors:Rose & Jensen for applicant

Flower and Hart for respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane  WRT. No. 482  of 1995

Before Mr Justice Mackenzie

[Legal Ease Pty Ltd v. J.W. Murphy & Anor]

BETWEEN:

LEGAL EASE PTY LTD

Applicant

AND:

JOHN WILLIAM MURPHY & PETER BERNARD ALLEN

Respondent

JUDGMENT - MACKENZIE J.

Judgment Delivered            1995

When an order was made refusing the applicant plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief on an interlocutory basis, I provisionally expressed the view that the plaintiff should pay the respondent's costs of the application.  I invited counsel to make submissions to the contract in writing if some other order was sought and counsel for the applicant initiated this process.
          Mr McMurdo Q.C. for the applicant submitted that either each party's costs should be reserved or each party's costs be that party's costs in the cause.  Mr Couper Q.C. submitted that the order foreshadowed was correct in principle.  After considering the respective written submissions, and having regard to the finely balanced considerations on the decisive question of balance of convenience (there being no doubt that there was a serious question to be tried on the issue of breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment), I am of the view that the costs of the motion should be reserved.  I order accordingly.