McCoombes v Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd - [2001] QDC 142

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: McCoombes v. Curragh Queensland Mining Limited [2001] QDC 142

PARTIES: MALCOLM ADRIAN McCOOMBES (Plaintiff)
v.
CURRAGH QUEENSLAND MINING LIMITED (Defendant)

FILE NO/S: D59 of 1995

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING: Review of costs assessment

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 14 June 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 12 October 2000

JUDGE: McGill DCJ

ORDER: Objections 2, 10, 11, 19, 22, 24, 30, 31 and 35 upheld; objections 4, 14, 36 and 38 upheld in part; other objections disallowed.

CATCHWORDS:
COSTS – Assessment – review –Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r.742

COSTS – Assessment – notice of objection – whether binding on party liable to pay – whether binding on registrar – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r.717

COSTS – Assessment – costs of assessment – offer to settle assessment – whether more than one possible – consequence of assessment splitting offers - whether another order appropriate – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r.721, 722.

COSTS – Assessment – scale items – engrossing – what constitutes

WORDS AND PHRASES – “engrossing”

Re: Feez Ruthning Bill of Costs [1989] 1 Qd.R. 55 – applied
Re: Bain Gasteen & Co’s Bill of Costs [1990] 1 Qd.R. 412 – applied
Garrard v. Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662 – followed
Dalrymple Holdings Pty Ltd v. Gohl (1991) 34 FCR 397 – followed
Adsett v. Berlouis (Writ 783/91, Thomas J, 15.1.93, unreported) – distinguished

COUNSEL: M. Grant-Taylor SC and S.P. Gray for the plaintiff
N.E. Ulrick for the defendant

SOLICITORS: R Rees & Sydney Jones for the plaintiff
Bain Gasteen for the defendant

This is a review pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r.742 of the decision made by a deputy registrar on a reconsideration under r.741 of decisions made in the course of conducting an assessment of a costs statement filed on behalf of the plaintiff. On 7 July 1999, Senior Judge Trafford-Walker ordered by consent that the action be adjourned to the settlement list, and that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action to be taxed on the District Court scale where the amount recovered exceeds $50,000. Pursuant to that order, on 1 December 1999 an application for costs assessment and costs statement was filed in the court by the solicitors for the plaintiff. The costs statement claimed $24,607.85 for professional costs and outlays of $16,044.40, a total of $40,652.25. It was 210 pages long, and included 1,432 items.

On 17 January 2001, the defendant filed its objections. There was a general objection to the manner of claiming for perusals and photocopying for counsel’s brief, and in addition there were 640 specific objections, although many of those were in substance the same objection which arose in respect of a number of particular items in the costs statement. An assessment was held over a period of 10 days in March and April 2000. On 20 April 2000, the deputy registrar directed that any application for reconsideration be filed and served by 19 May 2000. On…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McCoombes v Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] QDC 142
Decision Date: 14 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, Malcolm Adrian McCoombes, commenced proceedings against the defendant, Curragh Queensland Mining Limited, for damages arising from a workplace injury. The matter was initially filed in the Supreme Court, but was remitted to the District Court. The plaintiff's costs were ordered to be assessed on the District Court scale. The defendant filed numerous objections to the plaintiff's costs statement, and an assessment was conducted over a period of 10 days. The deputy registrar allowed in part the plaintiff's application for reconsideration, and the defendant's application was unsuccessful. The plaintiff subsequently filed an application for review of the costs assessment. The court considered various objections raised by the defendant and determined the appropriate costs to be allowed. The court found that the deputy registrar had not erred in allowing certain items of costs, but had erred in disallowing others. The court also considered the effect of multiple offers to settle the costs under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r.721 and r.722. Ultimately, the court determined the final amount of costs allowable to the plaintiff, as well as the costs of the assessment and review. The court found that the deputy registrar had erred in disregarding certain costs incurred while the matter was in the Supreme Court, and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application for review. The court also made no order as to the costs of the review.

Orders