DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QDC 340 PARTIES: MNM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
(ACN 103 948 509)Applicant
and
WILLIAM ALAN GERRARAD
Respondent
FILE NO: 404/2004 PROCEEDING: Costs application ORIGINATING COURT: District Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON: 4 November 2005 DELIVERED AT: Southport HEARING DATES: Written submissions dated 12 and 13 September 2005 JUDGE: Newton DCJ ORDER: Costs of and incidental to the application are to be the parties’ costs in the proceedings COUNSEL: Mr P Hackett – applicant
Mr L Jurth – respondent
SOLICITORS: Schultz Toomey O’Brien– applicant
Short Punch & Greatorix – respondent
The applicant (plaintiff) sought summary judgment of its claim by application filed on 22 December 2004. The application was dismissed and written submissions in relation to costs were duly provided pursuant to paragraph 19 of the judgment delivered on 4 February 2005.
Costs of a proceeding, including an application in a proceeding, are in the discretion of the Court but follow the event, unless the Court considers another order more appropriate (UCPR R 689(1)). The defendant was wholly successful in resisting the application and in normal circumstances it may be expected that an order for costs in favour of the defendant would be made.
However, the matter is complicated by the fact that the Court of Appeal rejected the basis upon which the decision in favour of the defendant had been made although the appeal was dismissed because in the Court’s view, the relevant factual situation had not been established clearly by the evidence, or addressed. Accordingly, the Court held that summary judgment could not have been, and could not, on appeal, be entered. (MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QCA 230 at [9] and [22] per de Jersey CJ).
I accept that in these circumstances the resolution of the factual dispute between the parties at trial or otherwise, ought to determine the respective entitlement to costs. Accordingly, I order that the costs of and incidental to the application filed on 22 December 2004 should be the parties’ costs in the cause.
- - - - -
- AGLC
- MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QDC 340
- Case
- [2005] QDC 340
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached any contractual or tortious duties that resulted in the alleged damages. The key legal issues included the standard of care expected of an architect, the scope of professional duties in the context of the building contract, and whether the alleged defects constituted a breach of those duties. The court needed to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the defendant's actions fell below the standard expected of a reasonably competent architect. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defects identified by the plaintiff were indeed the result of the defendant's negligence.
In its reasoning, the court examined the specific duties of the architect under the contract and relevant professional standards. The court found that the defendant had acted within the scope of his professional duties and did not breach any contractual or tortious obligations. The evidence did not establish that the defects were a result of negligence on the part of the architect. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not proven that the defendant's actions caused the damages claimed. The court found in favour of the defendant and ordered that the costs of and incidental to the application be borne by the parties in accordance with their costs in the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Costs of and incidental to the application are to be the parties’ costs in the proceedings
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.