MAV v ABA

Case [2007] QCA 242

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MAV v ABA [2007] QCA 242

PARTIES:

MAV
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
ABA
(defendant/respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(intervenor)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10078 of 2006
DC No 457 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time / General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 13 April 2007
Further order delivered 20 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2007

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Amend the order for costs in MAV v ABA [2007] QCA 124 to read: “The State of Queensland as intervenor is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, assessed on the standard basis.”

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the State of Queensland intervened – where the State of Queensland was the true respondent – whether a costs order should be made against the State of Queensland

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 388

COUNSEL:

D Honchin for the appellant
S Hinson SC for the intervenor

SOLICITORS:

Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the appellant
Crown Solicitor for the intervenor

  1. THE COURT: We amend the order for costs in MAV v ABA [2007] QCA 124 in accordance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 388 (“the slip rule”).

  1. The order for costs should read: “The State of Queensland as intervenor is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, assessed on the standard basis.”

Details
AGLC
MAV v ABA [2007] QCA 242
Case
[2007] QCA 242
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved MAV, the appellant, and ABA, the respondent, with the State of Queensland intervening in the matter. The dispute arose from an earlier decision in MAV v ABA [2007] QCA 124, where the primary issue was the appropriateness of a costs order against the State of Queensland. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the decision to determine whether the State of Queensland should be liable for costs in the appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the State of Queensland, as an intervenor, should bear the costs of the appeal. The appellant argued that the State of Queensland was the true respondent in the matter and, as such, should be responsible for the costs. The intervener contended that it should not be held liable for the costs as it was not the primary respondent in the original proceedings. The Court of Appeal had to consider the appropriate legal framework to resolve this issue.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal examined the relevant provisions of the law that govern costs in appeals and the role of intervenors. It found that the State of Queensland was indeed the true respondent in the matter, and therefore, it should bear the costs of the appeal. The Court concluded that the original order for costs was incorrect and needed to be amended to reflect the true respondent's liability.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the costs order in MAV v ABA [2007] QCA 124 be amended to read: "The State of Queensland as intervenor is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, assessed on the standard basis." This decision clarified the financial responsibility of the State of Queensland in the appeal proceedings and rectified the previous order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Amend the order for costs in MAV v ABA [2007] QCA 124 to read: “The State of Queensland as intervenor is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, assessed on the standard basis.”

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.