DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Naidoo v State of Queensland & Anor and Naidoo v The Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Services & Anor [2015] QDC 68
PARTIES:
DR NAVIN NAIDOO
(plaintiff)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(first defendant)
and
DR PREETY GEORGE
(second defendant)
and
DR NAVIN NAIDOO
(plaintiff)
v
THE SUNSHINE COAST HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE
(first defendant)
and
DR TERRENCE HANELT
(second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
D4/13 and D5/13
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Gympie
DELIVERED ON:
1 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:
District Court at Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:
25 February 2015
JUDGE:
Long SC DCJ
ORDER:
IN EACH OF THE MATTERS D4/13 AND D5/13, THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED
CATCHWORDS:
COSTS ASSESSMENT – APPLICATION TO REVIEW DECISION OF COSTS ASSESSOR– where costs assessor’s methodology reviewed against applicable principles – where objections seek to challenge or undermine the costs orders – whether costs assessor erred in exercise of discretion – whether costs assessor failed to comply with rules of natural justice or procedural fairness – whether any exercise of power in UCPR 742(6) warranted
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 691(1)-(5), r 702(1)-(2), r 708(4)(b), r 720(1), r 721, r 722, r 742(2)-(6)
Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth [1953] 94 CLR 621
Butler v Crowley & Greenhalgh Solicitors[1999] QSC 339
Hannover International Ltd v CF Robson; Mine & Quarry Equipment International v CW Robson; GF Robson v CW Robson [2012] QSC 47
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
COUNSEL:
No legal representation for the plaintiff
A.Newell solicitor, for the first and second defendants’
SOLICITORS:
No legal representation for the plaintiff
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the first and second defendants’
Introduction and context
The plaintiff in these matters has made application for review of each of the costs assessments conducted in respect of each proceeding and respectively evidenced by the cost certificates, each dated 17 November 2014 and filed in each proceeding.
By consent, these applications were heard together, as there is some degree of overlap and commonality of issue.
Although involving different second defendants,[1] each of these proceedings was instituted and relevantly pursued by the plaintiff as a self-represented litigant. He is a medical practitioner in Queensland and the issues which he sought to raise in these proceedings generally arose out of his dissatisfaction with responses of the defendants, in respect of what he regarded as important issues and about which he raised complaint during his employment at the Gympie Hospital.
[1]The differences in the description of the first defendant in each proceeding relates to some confusion that has occurred in the course of the proceedings in the identification of the true first defendant, being the entity responsible for the Gympie Hospital and the employer of each of the second defendants and therefore allegedly vicariously liable for the actions of those defendants.
The proceeding D4/13 was commenced by claim filed on 18 January…
Continue reading Naidoo v State of Queensland & Anor and Naidoo v The Sunshin...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Naidoo v State of Queensland and Anor and Naidoo v The Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Services and Anor [2015] QDC 68
- Case
- [2015] QDC 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the costs assessor had erred in exercising their discretion, whether the costs orders were in accordance with the applicable principles, and whether the costs assessor had complied with the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness. The applicants argued that the costs assessor had failed to properly consider the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and had not taken into account the applicants' financial circumstances. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the costs orders were fair and reasonable, and that the costs assessor had properly exercised their discretion.
The court found that the costs assessor had not erred in their exercise of discretion. The court held that the costs orders were proportionate and reasonable, taking into account the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the applicants' financial circumstances. The court also held that the costs assessor had complied with the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, as the applicants had been given an opportunity to make submissions and were provided with reasons for the costs orders. The court concluded that there were no grounds for the exercise of power under UCPR 742(6) to vary the costs orders.
The applications for review were dismissed, and the costs orders made by the costs assessor were upheld. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the respondents, as determined by the costs assessor.
Orders
Orders of the court
IN EACH OF THE MATTERS D4/13 AND D5/13, THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED
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.