Meade v Queensland Ambulance Service

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.