SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Murdoch v Lake [2014] QCA 269
PARTIES:
MALCOLM ALEXANDER STEPHEN MURDOCH
(appellant)
v
STEPHEN MAURICE LINTON LAKE
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 10070 of 2013
SC No 9994 of 2010DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal – Further Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
21 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 April 2014
JUDGES:
Morrison JA and Peter Lyons and Boddice JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
2013 are set aside.The orders made by Margaret Wilson J on 15 October1.
The respondent pay 75 per cent of the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appellant’s application filed on 22 April 2013.2.
The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the respondent’s application filed on 24 April 2013.3.
The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.4.
The monies paid into court by the appellant as security, pursuant to the order of Boddice J made on 9 December 2013, together with accretions (if any) be paid out to the appellant. 5.
The appellant have leave to amend the claim and statement of claim in accordance with the drafts in Exhibit JHP7 to the affidavit of Joel Hunter Pitman filed 12 September 2014.6.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the parties have made further submissions in respect of costs – where the appellant was granted leave to file an amended claim and a fourth amended statement of claim – where there were two applications before the learned primary judge – where there were multiple grounds of appeal, some of which were not solely found in one party’s favour – where each party disagrees as to how costs should be awarded – where costs of a proceeding follow the event – where the Court of Appeal may make an order as to the whole or part of the costs of an appeal – whether if a party is successful only upon a portion of their claim, it should bear the expense of litigation for the proportion of which it was unsuccessful
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 221
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 280, r 293, r 681, r 684, r 766(1)(d)Alborn & Ors v Stephens & Ors[2010] QCA 58, followed
Murdoch v Lake [2013] QSC 268, related
Murdoch v Lake[2014] QCA 216, related
Sequel Drill & Blast Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Crushers Pty Ltd (No 2)[2009] QCA 239, considered
Sochorova v Commonwealth of Australia[2012] QCA 152, followedCOUNSEL:
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 papersSOLICITORS:
Morgan Conley Solicitors for the appellant
Hopgood Ganim for…
Continue reading Murdoch v Lake
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Murdoch v Lake [2014] QCA 269
- Case
- [2014] QCA 269
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that arose centred on the principles of costs following the event and the appropriate allocation of those costs when a party is successful on some claims but not others. The appellant argued that as they had succeeded on some claims but not others, the respondent should bear the costs for the unsuccessful proportion. The respondent contended that they were entitled to costs as the overall outcome of the proceeding was in their favour, despite the appellant's partial success. The court had to navigate these arguments to determine a fair and just allocation of costs.
The court found that the primary judge had exercised her discretion in awarding costs appropriately, taking into account the overall outcome and the conduct of the parties. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision to set aside the orders made by Wilson J on 15 October 2013. The court concluded that the respondent should bear the majority of the appellant's costs for specific applications and the appeal itself. Furthermore, the court ordered that the monies held in court be returned to the appellant with any accrued interest. Finally, the court granted the appellant leave to amend the claim and the statement of claim as per the drafts provided.
The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent pay 75% of the appellant's costs for the application filed on 22 April 2013, all costs for the respondent's application filed on 24 April 2013, and all costs of the appeal. Additionally, the court ordered the return of the monies paid into court by the appellant, together with any accretions, and granted leave for the appellant to amend the claim and statement of claim as specified.
Orders
Orders of the court
2013 are set aside.The orders made by Margaret Wilson J on 15 October1.
The respondent pay 75 per cent of the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appellant’s application filed on 22 April 2013.2.
The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the respondent’s application filed on 24 April 2013.3.
The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.4.
The monies paid into court by the appellant as security, pursuant to the order of Boddice J made on 9 December 2013, together with accretions (if any) be paid out to the appellant. 5.
The appellant have leave to amend the claim and statement of claim in accordance with the drafts in Exhibit JHP7 to the affidavit of Joel Hunter Pitman filed 12 September 2014.6.
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.