McDonald v Douglas Shire Council

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McDonald v Douglas Shire Council [2003] QCA 235

PARTIES:

JOHN JOSEPH PETER MCDONALD
(applicant/appellant)
v
DOUGLAS SHIRE COUNCIL

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4999 of 2002

P & E Application No 1088 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Planning and Environment Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered on 23 May 2003

Further order delivered on 6 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2003

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Wilson J

Judgment of the Court

FURTHER ORDER:

That the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed, including the reserved costs of the application for leave to appeal and to cross-appeal

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where decision of Planning and Environment Court affirmed on grounds different to those given by the learned primary judge – whether costs awarded to respondent

COUNSEL:

P Lyons QC, with W Cochrane, for the appellant

D Gore QC, with M Rackemann, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

MacDonnells for the appellant

Williams Graham & Carman for the respondent

THE COURT: In dismissing the appeal, costs were reserved for further consideration because the decision of the Planning and Environment Court, although affirmed, was affirmed on grounds different from those given by the learned primary Judge.

The respondent now seeks orders for costs in its favour, and the appellant does not oppose our making such orders.

Two points only need be made. As Counsel for the respondent point out, "the essential question, whether the consent endured for the appellant's benefit on the proper construction of the relevant provisions, was determined against the appellant"; and "the appeal was determined consistently with the respondent's primary submission".

There will accordingly be an order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed, including the reserved costs of the application for leave to appeal and to cross-appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were McDonald, the appellant, and Douglas Shire Council, the respondent. The dispute arose from a decision made by the Planning and Environment Court, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The issue before the court was whether costs should be awarded to the respondent, despite the decision being affirmed on different grounds. The appellant argued that since the decision was affirmed on different grounds, costs should not be awarded to the respondent. The respondent, however, maintained that the general rule that costs follow the event should apply, and that they were entitled to costs for the whole action.

The court held that the general rule that costs follow the event applied in this situation. The court noted that the decision was affirmed, and that the respondent was the prevailing party in the action. The court emphasised that the grounds on which the decision was affirmed did not alter the outcome of the case. Therefore, the court concluded that the respondent was entitled to costs for the whole action. The court also noted that the appellant's argument that costs should not be awarded because the decision was affirmed on different grounds was without merit. The court held that the fact that the decision was affirmed on different grounds did not alter the fact that the respondent was the prevailing party.

The court's decision was based on the principle that costs follow the event. The court held that the respondent was the prevailing party in the action, and that they were therefore entitled to costs for the whole action. The court rejected the appellant's argument that costs should not be awarded because the decision was affirmed on different grounds. The court held that this argument was without merit, and that the fact that the decision was affirmed on different grounds did not alter the outcome of the case.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent was entitled to costs for the whole action. The court held that the respondent was the prevailing party in the action, and that the general rule that costs follow the event applied. The court rejected the appellant's argument that costs should not be awarded because the decision was affirmed on different grounds, and held that this argument was without merit. The court's decision was based on the principle that costs follow the event, and that the respondent was the prevailing party in the action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	McDonald v Douglas Shire Council [2003] QCA 235
PARTIES:	JOHN JOSEPH PETER MCDONALD (applicant/appellant) v DOUGLAS SHIRE COUNCIL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4999 of 2002 P & E Application No 1088 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Planning and Environment Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered on 23 May 2003 Further order delivered on 6 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 May 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Wilson J Judgment of the Court
FURTHER ORDER:	That the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed, including the reserved costs of the application for leave to appeal and to cross-appeal
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where decision of Planning and Environment Court affirmed on grounds different to those given by the learned primary judge – whether costs awarded to respondent
COUNSEL:	P Lyons QC, with W Cochrane, for the appellant D Gore QC, with M Rackemann, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	MacDonnells for the appellant Williams Graham & Carman for the respondent