Mules v Ferguson - [2015] QCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mules v Ferguson [2015] QCA 77

PARTIES:

NANCY LEANNE MULES
(appellant)
v
KAYLENE JOY FERGUSON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3754 of 2014
SC No 339 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

5 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Applegarth and Boddice JJ
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

The respondent, Kaylene Joy Ferguson, is to pay the appellant, Nancy Leanne Mules, interest in the sum of $23,561.38.1.

There be no order as to the costs of the application.2.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – where the appellant was successful on appeal – where the appellant sought interest on the entire judgment sum, calculated from the date of judgment at first instance – where the responded contended additional interest was payable only on those heads of damages which attracted interest in the original assessment of damages – whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order interest on the entire judgment sum from the date of judgment at first instance

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 58(3), s 59(2)

L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [No 2] (1982) 151 CLR 590; [1982] HCA 59, cited
Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd [No 2] (1988) 165 CLR 306; [1988] HCA 48, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the appellant, the appellant’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the appellant
K & L Gates for the respondent

THE COURT: On 6 February 2015 this Court, by majority, allowed the appellant’s appeal, set aside the judgment and orders entered below and entered judgment for the appellant in the amount of the damages assessed by the trial Judge “together with interest thereon”.

A dispute has arisen between the parties as to the obligation to pay interest. The appellant contends interest is payable on the entire judgment sum, calculated from the date of judgment at first instance, namely 25 March 2014. The respondent contends additional interest is only payable on those heads of damage which attracted interest in the original assessment of damages (past economic loss, past gratuitous care and past out-of-pocket expenses), calculated at the rate prescribed by the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

The appellant’s contention that she is entitled to interest on the entire judgment amount from 25 March 2014 relies on s 58(3) and/or s 59(2) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld). Relevantly, those sections provide:

“58Interest up to judgment

…

(3) The court may order that there be included in the amount for which judgment is given interest at the rate the court considers appropriate for all or part of the amount and for all or part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of judgment.

…

59 Interest…

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.

Continue reading Mules v Ferguson

Details

AGLC: Mules v Ferguson [2015] QCA 77
Case: [2015] QCA 77
Decision Date: 5 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mules v Ferguson involved an appeal against a decision regarding the calculation of interest on a judgment sum. Nancy Leanne Mules, the appellant, successfully appealed against the original decision and sought interest on the entire judgment sum from the date of the initial judgment. Kaylene Joy Ferguson, the respondent, argued that interest should only be calculated on those heads of damages that attracted interest in the original assessment. The court was required to determine whether it should exercise its discretion to order interest on the entire judgment sum from the date of the initial judgment.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was the interpretation of the court’s discretion in awarding interest on a judgment sum. The primary question was whether the court should impose interest on the entire sum from the date of the original judgment or restrict the interest to the heads of damages that initially attracted interest. The court had to consider the principles of justice and fairness in exercising its discretion and how these aligned with the respondent's argument that interest should only be applied to specific heads of damages.

The court found that the principles of justice and fairness warranted the exercise of its discretion in favour of the appellant. The court held that the respondent should pay interest on the entire judgment sum from the date of the initial judgment. This decision was based on the understanding that the respondent’s liability for the entire sum was established from the outset, and it was equitable to impose interest on the full amount from the date of the original judgment. The court exercised its discretion to order the respondent to pay interest on the entire sum, resulting in an interest amount of $23,561.38. The court also noted that there would be no order as to the costs of the application.

The final orders of the court mandated that Kaylene Joy Ferguson pay Nancy Leanne Mules interest in the sum of $23,561.38, calculated from the date of the initial judgment. Additionally, the court determined that there would be no order regarding the costs of the application. This decision underscored the court's commitment to ensuring that interest is fairly and justly applied, reflecting the respondent's full liability from the original judgment date.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent, Kaylene Joy Ferguson, is to pay the appellant, Nancy Leanne Mules, interest in the sum of $23,561.38.1.

There be no order as to the costs of the application.2.

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.

CITATION:	Mules v Ferguson [2015] QCA 77
PARTIES:	NANCY LEANNE MULES (appellant) v KAYLENE JOY FERGUSON (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3754 of 2014 SC No 339 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	5 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Applegarth and Boddice JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDERS:	The respondent, Kaylene Joy Ferguson, is to pay the appellant, Nancy Leanne Mules, interest in the sum of $23,561.38.1. There be no order as to the costs of the application.2.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – where the appellant was successful on appeal – where the appellant sought interest on the entire judgment sum, calculated from the date of judgment at first instance – where the responded contended additional interest was payable only on those heads of damages which attracted interest in the original assessment of damages – whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order interest on the entire judgment sum from the date of judgment at first instance Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 58(3), s 59(2) L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [No 2] (1982) 151 CLR 590; [1982] HCA 59, cited Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd [No 2] (1988) 165 CLR 306; [1988] HCA 48, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance by the appellant, the appellant’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the appellant K & L Gates for the respondent