Murdoch v Lake (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murdoch v Lake (No 2) [2013] QSC 279

PARTIES:

MALCOLM ALEXANDER STEPHEN MURDOCH
(plaintiff)

v

STEPHEN MAURICE LINTON LAKE
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 9994 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

15 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written submission on costs received 8 and 11 October 2013

JUDGE:

Margaret Wilson J

ORDER:

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of:
(a) the plaintiff’s application filed 22 April 2013;
(b) the defendant’s application filed 24 April 2013;
(c) the proceeding, including reserved costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff’s application for leave to amend and leave to replead was refused – where the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed – where the defendant sought its costs of the plaintiff’s application, its cross-application and the proceeding, including reserved costs – whether costs should be awarded on the terms sought

COUNSEL:

AJ Greinke for the plaintiff

D Kelly QC, M Hodge for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Morgan Conley Solicitors for the plaintiff

Hopgood Ganim for the defendant

MARGARET WILSON: On 2 October 2013 I refused the plaintiff’s application for leave to amend the claim and to file a fourth amended statement of claim, and refused to give leave to replead. I dismissed the claim.

The defendant has made written submissions in support of the following costs order:

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of:

(a) the plaintiff’s application filed 22 April 2013;

(b) the defendant’s application filed 24 April 2013;

(c) the proceeding, including reserved costs.

The plaintiff does not oppose this.

I order accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Murdoch v Lake (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Mr Murdoch, and the defendant, Mr Lake, with the dispute centred on the costs associated with various applications and the overall proceeding. The case was heard and determined in a lower court, the specifics of which are not detailed in the text. The primary legal issue revolved around whether the defendant, Mr Lake, was entitled to the costs of the plaintiff’s unsuccessful application to amend and replead, the defendant’s cross-application, and the entire proceeding, including any reserved costs.

The court considered the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party typically bears the costs of the successful party. In this instance, the plaintiff’s application to amend and replead was dismissed, and his claim was ultimately rejected. Consequently, the court had to determine if the defendant was justified in seeking his costs for the plaintiff's application, his own cross-application, and the overall proceeding. The court weighed the principles of fairness and the conduct of the parties in reaching its decision.

In deciding the matter, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to the costs as sought. The refusal of the plaintiff’s application and the dismissal of his claim justified awarding the defendant the costs of the plaintiff’s application, the defendant’s cross-application, and the entire proceeding, including reserved costs. The court found that the defendant’s position was reasonable and that the plaintiff's applications were without merit.

The final orders of the court mandated that the plaintiff, Mr Murdoch, pay the defendant, Mr Lake, the costs associated with the plaintiff’s application filed on 22 April 2013, the defendant’s application filed on 24 April 2013, and the costs of the entire proceeding, including any reserved costs. This decision adhered to the general principle that costs should follow the event, particularly when the plaintiff's applications were unsuccessful.

Orders of the court

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of:

(a) the plaintiff’s application filed 22 April 2013;

(b) the defendant’s application filed 24 April 2013;

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Murdoch v Lake (No 2) [2013] QSC 279
PARTIES:	MALCOLM ALEXANDER STEPHEN MURDOCH (plaintiff) v STEPHEN MAURICE LINTON LAKE (defendant)
FILE NO:	BS 9994 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	15 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Written submission on costs received 8 and 11 October 2013
JUDGE:	Margaret Wilson J
ORDER:	The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of: (a) the plaintiff’s application filed 22 April 2013; (b) the defendant’s application filed 24 April 2013; (c) the proceeding, including reserved costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff’s application for leave to amend and leave to replead was refused – where the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed – where the defendant sought its costs of the plaintiff’s application, its cross-application and the proceeding, including reserved costs – whether costs should be awarded on the terms sought
COUNSEL:	AJ Greinke for the plaintiff D Kelly QC, M Hodge for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Morgan Conley Solicitors for the plaintiff Hopgood Ganim for the defendant