Mansour t/as Quick Start Mechanical and Performance v Cilliers (No 2)

Case [2014] QDC 183


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mansour t/as Quick Start Mechanical and Performance v Cilliers (No 2) [2014] QDC 183

PARTIES:

HAZIM MANSOUR T/AS QUICK START MECHANICAL AND PERFORMANCE
(ABN 67355747449)

(plaintiff)

v

RUSSEL WILLEM CILLIERS 

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D93/2013

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

Hearing on the papers. Plaintiff’s submissions dated 29 August 2014. Defendant’s submissions dated 29 August 2014.

JUDGE:

Smith DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The costs of and incidental to the applications are reserved.

2.   I order the Plaintiff provide further and better particulars of his statement of claim by 5pm on 15 September 2014. 

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS- Whether Plaintiff should pay 25% of costs or whether should be reserved costs

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) Rule 681

COUNSEL:

Submissions on the papers

SOLICITORS:

Mr Mansour self-represented for the Plaintiff

Anne Murray and Co for the Defendant

  1. This is the costs decision consequent upon the ruling made in Mansour t/as Quick Start Mechanical and Performancev Cilliers [2014] QDC 175.

  1. The plaintiff submits:

(a)        He has properly particularised his claim for damages;

(b)        He has not received a response regarding settlement proposals;

(c)        The particulars in paragraph 6, 9, 10 and 11 are sufficient;

(d)        The court make an order preventing the defendant from selling or transferring property;

(e)        The matter be listed before trial.

  1. The defendant submits:

(a)        That it was successful in obtaining an order for further and better particulars;

(b)        The order for particulars was necessary as previous requests had been made and were not complied with;

(c)        The defendant does not press for indemnity costs but submits the plaintiff should pay 25% of his costs on a standard basis;

(d)        Since judgment has been delivered a fourth amended statement of claim has been delivered and still there is no allowance for wages and entitlements payable to the defendant;

(e)        A timeframe for delivery of particulars should be given;

(f)        Further particulars of the plaintiff’s new pleading need to be resolved before the action can move forward.

  1. Having considered all matters it seems to me appropriate to reserve the question of costs.  I consider it appropriate to depart from the general rule (UCPR 681). Both parties were unsuccessful in their applications for summary judgment and the defendant was further unsuccessful with respect to the application for security for costs.  It was successful concerning the particulars but that was only a small part of the argument. 

  1. With respect to the further and better particulars I have already made the orders requiring these.  I order that the plaintiff provide the further and better particulars ordered in the judgment dated 22 August 2014 by 5.00 pm 15 September 2014. 

  1. There is insufficient material in order to make an order preventing the defendant from transferring his assets.  Additionally until the pleadings are in order the matter is not ready to be listed for trial.

  1. My orders are as follows:

1. The costs of and incidental to the applications are reserved.

2. I order the Plaintiff provide further and better particulars of his statement of claim by 5pm on 15 September 2014. 

Details
AGLC
Mansour t/as Quick Start Mechanical and Performance v Cilliers (No 2) [2014] QDC 183
Case
[2014] QDC 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Mansour, trading as Quick Start Mechanical and Performance, and Cilliers. The nature of the dispute centred around the costs incurred in the litigation, specifically whether the plaintiff, Mansour, should pay 25% of the costs or if the costs should be reserved. The case was heard in a Queensland court, with the court required to consider the application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) Rule 681 in determining the appropriate allocation of costs.

The central legal issue that the court had to resolve was whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay 25% of the costs of the applications, as sought by the defendant, or if the costs should be reserved. The court had to consider the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the parties and the nature of the proceedings, to make this determination. Additionally, the court needed to address whether the plaintiff should provide further and better particulars of his statement of claim, as requested by the defendant.

In making its decision, the court found that the costs of and incidental to the applications should be reserved, meaning that neither party would be required to pay the 25% of the costs at that stage of the proceedings. The court also ordered the plaintiff to provide further and better particulars of his statement of claim by a specified date, acknowledging the defendant's request for more detailed information. The court's decision was based on a consideration of the overall circumstances of the case and the need for the plaintiff to provide additional information to support his claim.

The court's final orders were that the costs of and incidental to the applications were to be reserved, and the plaintiff was to provide further and better particulars of his statement of claim by the specified date. This decision allowed the case to proceed with the necessary information while ensuring that the costs were not allocated prematurely.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The costs of and incidental to the applications are reserved.

2. I order the Plaintiff provide further and better particulars of his statement of claim by 5pm on 15 September 2014.

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.