Leigh v Sanchez [No 2] - [2025] QCA 79

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Leigh v Sanchez [No 2] [2025] QCA 79

PARTIES:

TRACY LEIGH
(applicant)
v
LOUIS PHILLIPE SANCHEZ
(first respondent)
RONA MARIE SANCHEZ
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 15719 of 2024
DC No 1060 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Further Orders - Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2024] QDC 123 & [2024] QDC 149 (Porter KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

23 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Burns and Ryan JJ

ORDERS:

1. Leave given to the applicant to rely on paragraph 6 of her affidavit affirmed on 16 April 2025.

2. The applicant must pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time to appeal and application for leave to appeal including reserved costs, except for the costs of the application filed on 9 December 2024 that relate to the relief sought other than for security for costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the applicant applied for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from the orders of the District Court judge that struck out the paragraphs of the statement of claim that pleaded a claim for aggravated damages and refused leave to applicant to re-plead – where the respondents were successful in obtaining an order for security for costs against the applicant for the applications in the Court of Appeal – where the applicant could not provide the security and consented to the dismissal of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal and application for leave to appeal – where the parties did not agree on what costs order should be made in respect of those applications – whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal

Leigh v Sanchez[2025] QCA 4, related

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
J Levine for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Matrix Legal for the respondents

THE COURT: The applicant Ms Leigh brought a defamation proceeding against the respondents Mr and Mrs Sanchez in the District Court. On 6 August 2024, the primary judge struck out certain paragraphs of the further amended statement of claim which were relied on by the applicant for a claim for aggravated damages: Leigh v Sanchez [2024] QDC 123. The applicant prepared a second further amended statement of claim that was considered by the primary judge in determining whether leave to re-plead should be given. On 30 August 2024 the primary judge refused the applicant leave to rely on the second further amended statement of claim and dismissed her application for leave to re-plead and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents costs of the application.
The applicant did not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Leigh v Sanchez [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Leigh v Sanchez [No 2] [2025] QCA 79
Case: [2025] QCA 79
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Leigh v Sanchez, the respondent sought costs from the applicant in relation to two applications in the Court of Appeal. The application was made following an earlier decision by the District Court judge to strike out certain paragraphs of the applicant’s statement of claim and to refuse the applicant leave to re-plead. The respondent had previously obtained an order for security for costs in relation to the appeal applications. The applicant was unable to provide the required security and consequently consented to the dismissal of the application for extension of time and the appeal. The parties could not agree on what costs order should be made in relation to those applications.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal. The court considered the general principles and exercise of discretion in relation to costs, including the general rule that costs follow the event and the nature of the unsuccessful applications. The court noted that the applicant had been unable to provide the security for costs and had consented to the dismissal of the application, which had a significant impact on the costs order.

The court concluded that the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal, except for the costs of the application filed on 9 December 2024 that related to the relief sought other than for security for costs. The court found that the applicant’s inability to provide the security for costs and their consent to the dismissal of the application were significant factors in the costs order. The court also considered the impact of the unsuccessful applications on the respondent and the importance of enforcing the security for costs order.

The court ordered that the applicant must pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time to appeal and the application for leave to appeal, except for the costs of the application filed on 9 December 2024 that related to the relief sought other than for security for costs. The court also granted leave to the applicant to rely on paragraph 6 of her affidavit affirmed on 16 April 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave given to the applicant to rely on paragraph 6 of her affidavit affirmed on 16 April 2025.

2. The applicant must pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time to appeal and application for leave to appeal including reserved costs, except for the costs of the application filed on 9 December 2024 that relate to the relief sought other than for security for costs.

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.

CITATION:	Leigh v Sanchez [No 2] [2025] QCA 79
PARTIES:	TRACY LEIGH (applicant) v LOUIS PHILLIPE SANCHEZ (first respondent) RONA MARIE SANCHEZ (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 15719 of 2024 DC No 1060 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Further Orders - Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2024] QDC 123 & [2024] QDC 149 (Porter KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	23 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Burns and Ryan JJ
ORDERS:	1. Leave given to the applicant to rely on paragraph 6 of her affidavit affirmed on 16 April 2025. 2. The applicant must pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time to appeal and application for leave to appeal including reserved costs, except for the costs of the application filed on 9 December 2024 that relate to the relief sought other than for security for costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the applicant applied for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from the orders of the District Court judge that struck out the paragraphs of the statement of claim that pleaded a claim for aggravated damages and refused leave to applicant to re-plead – where the respondents were successful in obtaining an order for security for costs against the applicant for the applications in the Court of Appeal – where the applicant could not provide the security and consented to the dismissal of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal and application for leave to appeal – where the parties did not agree on what costs order should be made in respect of those applications – whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal Leigh v Sanchez[2025] QCA 4, related
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf J Levine for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Matrix Legal for the respondents