Meade v Queensland Ambulance Service - [1996] QSC 62

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane No. 1414 of 1995

Before the Hon Justice White

[Meade v. Queensland Ambulance Service]

BETWEEN:

GRAHAM CHRISTOPHER MEADE
Plaintiff

AND:

QUEENSLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J
Judgment delivered 24/04/1996

CATCHWORDS REVIEW of Taxation of Costs - Four similar chamber summonses - Same solicitor and counsel for respondents/plaintiffs - Four bills of costs - Apportionment - Approach - R. v. Hore, ex parte Brisbane City Council

Counsel:Mr P Dwyer for applicant
Mr P Gorman for respondent

Solicitors:Crown Solicitor for applicant
Watts & Company for respondent

Hearing date: 19 April 1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane No. 1414 of 1995

[Meade v. Queensland Ambulance Service]

BETWEEN:

GRAHAM CHRISTOPHER MEADE
Plaintiff

AND:

QUEENSLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J
Judgment delivered 24/04/1996

This is an application to review the taxation carried out by a taxing officer of this Court in respect of a bill of costs pursuant to O.92 r.119 of the Rules. Objections were taken to a great number of items in the bill, the taxing officer answered the objections allowing a small number and declining the bulk of them. A review of those items, the objections to which were disallowed, is sought on this application for review. Three other bills, almost identical, were brought in at the same time. They were not then taxed by the taxing officer but were considered by him when taxing the subject bill and need to be considered on this application.
Background
On 4 August 1995 four Supreme Court writs of summons were filed in the Brisbane registry being writs numbered 1414, 1415, 1416 and 1417 of 1995. In each writ Queensland Ambulance Service ("the Service") was named as the defendant and the solicitor on the record for each plaintiff was Watts & Company. The endorsement on each writ is for damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence and/or breach of contract and/or breach of statutory duty of the Service arising out of incidents occurring in 1992 and subsequently. The writs were served on the Service and the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland on 9 August 1995.
On 14 August 1995 the Crown Solicitor received by facsimile transmission copies of the writs from the Workers' Compensation Board. On the following day the Crown Solicitor received copies of the writs from the Service. The Crown Solicitor was instructed by the Service to enter appearances on its behalf in respect of all the writs. Due to administrative matters within the office of the Crown Solicitor no action was taken on those files until 22 August 1995 when an entry of appearance in respect of each matter was filed in the Supreme Court registry. Two hours earlier the solicitor for the plaintiffs had obtained judgment in respect of each action in default of appearance against the Service with damages to be assessed. The first that the Crown Solicitor knew of the judgments was from an article which appeared…

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 Meade v Queensland Ambulance Service 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: [1996] QSC 62
Decision Date: 24 April 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Meade v. Queensland Ambulance Service was heard, concerning a dispute over the taxation of legal costs following default judgments. The plaintiff, Graham Christopher Meade, sought a review of the taxation of his legal costs bill, which was filed following the service of four Supreme Court writs against the Queensland Ambulance Service. The Service contested the taxation of these costs, leading to a review application under O.92 r.119 of the Rules. The primary legal issue was whether the taxing officer correctly apportioned the costs between the four actions, given that they were substantially similar and handled by the same solicitor and counsel. The court referenced the precedent in R. v. Hore, ex parte Brisbane City Council, which suggests that in cases involving multiple appeals or actions with similar issues, a moderate increase in the proper fee for one appeal and an apportionment of the total among all actions is appropriate. The court found that while the taxing officer generally applied the correct principles, there were instances where he failed to apportion costs where he should have, leading to a higher total cost than necessary. The court concluded that the taxing officer's discretion had not miscarried to a degree that would warrant a review but ordered a review of the taxation in accordance with the court's reasoning. The court also ordered that the Queensland Ambulance Service pay two-thirds of the plaintiff's costs of the review application.

Orders