McConaghy v The Ship MV 2000 (No 3)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McConaghy v The Ship MV 2000 (No 3) [2024] QSC 92

PARTIES:

LAWRENCE McCONAGHY

(First Plaintiff) and

JOANNE VERNEY
(Second Plaintiff)
v
THE SHIP MV 2000

(First Defendant) and

FORTITUDE INVESTMENTS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ABN 47629489149)

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

189 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns

DELIVERED ORALLY ON:

5 February 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2024

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   The defendants will pay the plaintiffs 70 per cent of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis.

2.   Liberty to apply in connection with the security on the giving of two business days’ notice in writing.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURES – CIVIL PROCEEDING IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where costs follow trial judgment – where the defendants allege the plaintiffs’ conduct was unreasonable – where the defendants seek the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs

PROCEDURES – CIVIL PROCEEDING IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – DEPRIVING SUCCESSFUL PARTY OF COSTS – CONDUCT OF PARTY OR PROCEEDING – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs were the substantially successful party – where the defendants allege the plaintiffs were unreasonable by rejecting their Calderbank offer – where the defendants allege the plaintiffs were unreasonable in submitting unrealistic settlement offers – where the defendants allege the plaintiffs were unreasonable by signing a dispute resolution agreement but not executing the related deed – where the defendants allege the plaintiffs’ conduct in arresting the MV2000 Ship and placing the $28,000 claim before the Supreme Court was unreasonable – where the defendants allege the plaintiffs’ conduct in the course of proceedings and trial was unreasonable – whether the plaintiffs’ conduct throughout the proceeding was so unreasonable that they be ordered to pay the defendants’ costs – where the extent of any alleged unreasonableness by the plaintiffs in their conduct of litigation was no worse than that of the defendants

Alborn & Ors v Stephens & Ors [2010] QCA 58, cited
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333, cited
Day v Humphrey [2018] QCA 321, cited
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, cited

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 681, 684

COUNSEL:

J McDiarmuid (sol) for the plaintiffs

A Lawrence for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Agnew Lawyers for the plaintiffs

Pacific Maritime Lawyers for the first and second defendants

1. I gave judgment in McConaghy & Anor v The Ship MV2000 & Anor (No 2) [2023] QSC 274 on 1 December 2023.

2. It remains to determine the question of costs, as to which the parties are poles apart.  On the one hand, the plaintiffs submit, as the predominantly successful party, that the defendants ought bear the plaintiffs’ costs.  Failing that, they submit the defendants ought pay at least a substantial proportion of the plaintiffs’ costs.  On the other hand, the defendants…