McBride v Ask Funding Ltd
Case
•
[2013] QCA 130
•28 May 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
McBride v ASK Funding Ltd [2013] QCA 130
[2013] QCA 130
28 May 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McBride appealed against a decision of the District Court of Queensland, where the court had ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. The primary judge had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay costs on an indemnity basis. McBride sought to appeal on the basis that the primary judge had not provided adequate reasons for the decision, and that the costs order was excessive. The defendant cross-appealed, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed for being frivolous.
The legal issues in this appeal were whether the primary judge had provided sufficient reasons for the decision, whether further evidence should be admitted, and whether the costs order was appropriate. The court found that the primary judge had provided adequate reasons for the decision, and that the appeal was not frivolous. The court also found that some of the further evidence should be admitted, and that the costs order should be set aside in favour of a standard costs order.
The court held that the primary judge had provided sufficient reasons for the decision, despite not referring to the evidence in detail. The court found that the reasons provided were adequate to allow the court to understand the basis of the decision. The court also found that some of the further evidence should be admitted, as it was relevant to the appeal and would assist the court in determining the appropriate costs order. Finally, the court found that the costs order should be set aside in favour of a standard costs order, as the judgment was not plainly more favourable than the Calderbank offer made by the defendant.
The court allowed the application to extend time to file the notice of appeal, and granted special leave to receive further evidence. The court set aside the costs order and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application and the proceeding. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application and appeal.
The legal issues in this appeal were whether the primary judge had provided sufficient reasons for the decision, whether further evidence should be admitted, and whether the costs order was appropriate. The court found that the primary judge had provided adequate reasons for the decision, and that the appeal was not frivolous. The court also found that some of the further evidence should be admitted, and that the costs order should be set aside in favour of a standard costs order.
The court held that the primary judge had provided sufficient reasons for the decision, despite not referring to the evidence in detail. The court found that the reasons provided were adequate to allow the court to understand the basis of the decision. The court also found that some of the further evidence should be admitted, as it was relevant to the appeal and would assist the court in determining the appropriate costs order. Finally, the court found that the costs order should be set aside in favour of a standard costs order, as the judgment was not plainly more favourable than the Calderbank offer made by the defendant.
The court allowed the application to extend time to file the notice of appeal, and granted special leave to receive further evidence. The court set aside the costs order and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application and the proceeding. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application and appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
McBride v ASK Funding Ltd [2013] QCA 130
Most Recent Citation
GPP Arundel Pty Ltd v Basford Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] QSC 209
Cases Citing This Decision
34
Michael Hill Jeweller (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gispac Pty Ltd
[2024] NSWCA 211
Anne v Ask Funding Ltd (No.2)
[2014] FCCA 1840
Anne v Ask Funding Ltd
[2013] FCCA 1271
Cases Cited
17
Statutory Material Cited
3
Crystal Dawn Pty Ltd v Redruth Pty Ltd
[1998] QCA 373
Wainohu v New South Wales
[2011] HCA 24
Wainohu v New South Wales
[2011] HCA 24
Cited Sections