Murray v Radford

[2003] QCA 91

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murray v Radford [2003] QCA 91

PARTIES:

KENNETH EDWARD MURRAY
(appellant/applicant)
v
GAVIN JAMES RADFORD
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 613 of 2003
DC Appeal No 39 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

5 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Jerrard JJA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Application for leave to appeal granted
2.    Allow the appeal only to the extent of substituting for her Honour's order for costs and order that the appellant in the District Court pay the respondent's costs in that Court fixed at $2,850
3.    Otherwise dismiss the application for leave to appeal
4.    The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of this application

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - where magistrate exercised discretion under s 158 and s 158A Justices Act 1886 (Qld) to refuse to grant an order for costs - whether District Court judge erred in dismissing an appeal against the magistrate's decision - whether irrelevant matters affected the exercise of discretion - whether order for costs should be made

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 158, s 158A, s 158A (2), s 226

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, cited

COUNSEL:

T Carmody SC, with B P Ryan, for applicant
P J Davis for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Andrew P Abaza for applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA:  This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court on appeal from the Magistrates Court.  The decision of the District Court and the appeal to this Court, if leave were granted, is in respect of costs only.

The applicant was charged on complaint in the Magistrates Court on three offences under the Local Government Act.  Those charges were:
     "Charge 1

On the 17th day of May 2000 at Gatton in the State of Queensland KENNETH EDWARD MURRAY, then a councillor of the Gatton Shire Council, did take part in a meeting of the said council while an issue on which he, the said KENNETH EDWARD MURRAY, had a material personal interest, was being considered;
Charge 2
On the 21st day of June 2000 at Gatton in the
State of Queensland KENNETH EDWARD MURRAY, then a councillor of the Gatton Shire Council, did take part in a meeting of the said council while an issue on which he, the said KENNETH EDWARD MURRAY, had a material personal interest, was being considered;
Charge 3
On the 12th day of September 2000 at Gatton in the State of Queensland KENNETH EDWARD MURRAY, then a councillor of the Gatton Shire Council, did take part in a meeting of the said council while an issue on which he, the said KENNETH EDWARD MURRAY, had…