MCG Resources Pty Ltd v Burt
[2012] QLC 1
•13 January 2012
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: MCG Resources Pty Ltd v Burt & Ors [2012] QLC 0001 PARTIES: MCG Resources Pty Ltd
(Applicant)v. Terence John Burt
(First Respondent)and
Robert William Kirkby
(Second Respondent)and
Judy-Anne Galway
(Third Respondent)FILE NO: VLA147-10 DIVISION: Land Court of Queensland PROCEEDINGS: Court Order consequent upon Costs Assessor’s Certificates filed 15 November 2011 DELIVERED ON: 13 January 2012 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane MEMBER: His Honour, WL Cochrane, Member ORDERS: 1. The Second and Third Respondents pay the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
· the order of the court dated 10 November 2010; and
· the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $2,300.75.
2. The First Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
· the order of the court dated 10 November 2010; and
· the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $3,714.00.
3. The First, Second and Third Respondents pay jointly and severally the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
· the order of the court dated 18 August 2011; and
· the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $1,411.46.
4. The First, Second and Third Respondents pay jointly and severally the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
· the orders of the court dated 22 November 2010 and 18 August 2011; and
· the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $3,077.03.
CATCHWORDS: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999, Rule 740
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 4
Costs Statements - Costs Assessor’s Certificate - Costs
Background
This is the decision in a matter which comes before the Court pursuant to the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.
The matter came before His Honour Mr WA Isdale on 10 November 2010 upon which occasion there were appearances by Counsel for the applicant and by the second and third respondents (Kirkby and Galway). There was no appearance by the first respondent, Terence John Burt.
Included in the orders made by His Honour on 10 November 2010 were the following:
“3.By consent, Ms Galway and Mr Kirkby pay the applicant’s costs thrown away of today’s application.
4. In the absence of an appearance by Mr T J Burt , Mr Burt pay the applicant’s costs thrown away of today’s appearance.”
The matter also came before His Honour Mr WA Isdale again on 22 November 2010.
On 22 November 2010 His Honour Mr Isdale made orders including the following:
“2.That the respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the appearance on 22 November 2010 jointly and severally on the standard basis.”
On 18 August 2011, His Honour Mr WA Isdale made orders that:
“1.Ruth Chowdhury be appointed as the costs assessor.
2. The costs of the Application for the appointment of a costs assessor be costs in the assessment.”
Prior to the appointment of Ms Chowdhury as the costs assessor, costs statements in respect of each of the orders made on 10 November 2010 and 22 November 2010 had been filed in this Court by the solicitors acting for the applicant.
No objections were received to those costs statements.
On 15 November 2011, Ms Chowdhury filed two costs assessor’s certificates in this Court.
In respect of the orders made on 10 November 2010 she assessed the costs of MCG Resources Pty Ltd with respect to that order in the amount of Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-six Dollars and Twenty-one cents ($7,426.21). In accordance with the order of the Land Court she apportioned those costs as follows:
“(a)$2,300.75 - costs thrown away of application (payable by Ms Galway and Mr Kirkby).
(b) $3,714.00 - costs thrown away of appearance (payable by Mr Burt).
(c) $1,411.46 - balance being the costs of the application and my fees to be paid jointly and severally by the Respondents.”
Ms Chowdhury’s certificate in respect of the 10 November 2010 order also reflected that the costs of the application for her appointment to be the costs assessor be costs in the assessment and she assessed those costs in favour of MCG Resources Pty Ltd in a total figure of One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty Two Dollars and Ninety-two cents ($1,922.92) and apportioned 50% of those costs as being applicable to the order of 10 November 2010 generating a figure of Nine Hundred and Sixty One Dollars and Forty-six cents ($961.46).
With respect to the order of 22 November 2010 Ms Chowdhury assessed the costs of the applicant, MCG Resources Pty Ltd, on the basis of a default costs assessment, she having not received any proper objections from the respondents. Her assessed figure in respect of the costs of MCG Resources Pty Ltd with respect to the order dated 22 November 2010 was in the sum of Three Thousand and Seventy Seven Dollars and Three cents ($3,077.03).
The order of 18 August 2011 appointing her to assess the costs in the matter provided that the costs of the application for her appointment be costs in the assessment and she assesses those costs in the amount of One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two Dollars and Ninety-two cents ($1,922.92) and, as with the order of 10 November 2010, she apportioned 50% of those assessed costs with respect to the order of 22 November 2010. Similarly, her fee of $900 being payable by the first, second and third respondents was apportioned 50% with respect to the order of 22 November 2010 and 50% with respect to the order of 10 November 2010. Accordingly I make the following orders in reliance upon the material contained within the costs assessor’s certificates.
Orders
1. The Second and Third Respondents pay the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
·the order of the court dated 10 November 2010; and
·the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $2,300.75.
2. The First Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
·the order of the court dated 10 November 2010; and
·the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $3,714.00.
3. The First, Second and Third Respondents pay jointly and severally the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
·the order of the court dated 18 August 2011; and
·the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $1,411.46.
4. The First, Second and Third Respondents pay jointly and severally the Applicant’s costs pursuant to:
·the orders of the court dated 22 November 2010 and 18 August 2011; and
·the certificate of the costs assessor filed 15 November 2011,
assessed at $3,077.03.
HIS HONOUR WL COCHRANE
MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT
0
0
0