Nathan v Williams and Anor - [2020] QCA 172

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nathan v Williams & Anor [2020] QCA 172

PARTIES:

JULIAN PAUL ELIZER NATHAN
(appellant)
v
DANIEL SATKUNAM BALARAJAN WILLIAMS
(first respondent)
NATHAN LAWYERS BRISBANE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 154 104 426
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7325 of 2019
SC No 12663 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 127; [2019] QSC 150 (Boddice J)

DELIVERED ON:

18 August 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Brown J

ORDERS:

1. The Appellant pay 95 per cent of the First Respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

2. The Appellant pay the Second Respondent’s costs of the appeal, save for the Second Respondent’s costs with respect to ground 8 of the appeal, on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the appellant was unsuccessful save for one discrete ground of appeal – where the second respondent played the principal role in defending the successful ground of appeal – where the second respondent otherwise played a limited role in the appeal – where the first respondent deferred to the second respondent regarding the successful ground of appeal – whether the first respondent should be awarded costs on a discounted basis – whether the second respondent should be awarded costs on a discounted basis

Nathan v Williams & Anor[2020] QCA 138, cited

COUNSEL:

B O’Donnell QC, with P O’Brien, for the appellant
A Crowe QC, and L Copley, for the first respondent
C Crawford for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mullins Lawyers for the appellant
Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the first respondent
K & L Gates for the second respondent

THE COURT: This Court published its reasons in this appeal on 23 June 2020. The Appellant (Nathan) succeeded on one discrete ground of appeal (Ground 8). Nathan was otherwise unsuccessful on the remaining 11 grounds of appeal.
Nathan submits that he is entitled to costs on the ground upon which he succeeded, namely Ground 8. Nathan contends that, notwithstanding that he was generally unsuccessful in the appeal, Ground 8 upon which he succeeded was a discrete and separate ground of appeal. That ground was dealt with separately by the parties and the Court, and was opposed by both the First Respondent (Williams) and the Second Respondent (the Company). Nathan submits that the best approach is to provide for a discount of the costs order from the Respondents’ costs which Nathan will be otherwise ordered to pay. Nathan contends that based on a rough apportionment, the discount to the Respondent’s costs should be 15 per cent.
Williams submits that Nathan should pay each of the Respondents’ costs on appeal given Ground 8 was immaterial to the relief…

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 Nathan v Williams and Anor

Details

AGLC: Nathan v Williams [2020] QCA 172
Case: [2020] QCA 172
Decision Date: 18 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the Appellant, Nathan, against the First Respondent, Williams, and the Second Respondent, another party not named in the summary. The dispute arose from a decision made by a lower court, which the Appellant sought to overturn on appeal. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the Appellant was largely unsuccessful, except for one specific ground of appeal. The First Respondent played a significant role in defending against the successful ground, while the Second Respondent had a limited involvement overall. However, the Second Respondent was central in defending the successful ground of appeal, while the First Respondent deferred to the Second Respondent on this matter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the First Respondent should be awarded costs on a reduced basis given their limited involvement in the appeal, except for the successful ground. A related issue was whether the Second Respondent, who played a more prominent role in defending the successful ground, should also be awarded costs on a reduced basis. The court had to balance the principle that costs typically follow the event of the litigation against the specific circumstances of the case, including the roles of the respondents in the successful and unsuccessful grounds of appeal.

In deciding the matter, the court held that the Appellant should pay 95% of the First Respondent’s costs on the standard basis, acknowledging the First Respondent’s significant role in defending the successful ground. However, the court determined that the Appellant should bear the full costs of the Second Respondent, except for those associated with the successful ground of appeal. This decision reflected the court’s view that the Second Respondent’s involvement was more focused and critical to the outcome of the appeal. The court’s reasoning emphasised the importance of proportionality in awarding costs, considering the contributions and roles of each respondent in the litigation.

The court’s final orders were that the Appellant pay 95% of the First Respondent’s costs on the standard basis and the full costs of the Second Respondent, excluding those related to the successful ground of appeal. This outcome ensured that each respondent was fairly compensated for their involvement, in line with the specific circumstances of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Appellant pay 95 per cent of the First Respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

2. The Appellant pay the Second Respondent’s costs of the appeal, save for the Second Respondent’s costs with respect to ground 8 of the appeal, on the standard basis.

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:	Nathan v Williams & Anor [2020] QCA 172
PARTIES:	JULIAN PAUL ELIZER NATHAN (appellant) v DANIEL SATKUNAM BALARAJAN WILLIAMS (first respondent) NATHAN LAWYERS BRISBANE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 154 104 426 (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7325 of 2019 SC No 12663 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 127; [2019] QSC 150 (Boddice J)
DELIVERED ON:	18 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Brown J
ORDERS:	1. The Appellant pay 95 per cent of the First Respondent’s costs of the appeal on the standard basis. 2. The Appellant pay the Second Respondent’s costs of the appeal, save for the Second Respondent’s costs with respect to ground 8 of the appeal, on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the appellant was unsuccessful save for one discrete ground of appeal – where the second respondent played the principal role in defending the successful ground of appeal – where the second respondent otherwise played a limited role in the appeal – where the first respondent deferred to the second respondent regarding the successful ground of appeal – whether the first respondent should be awarded costs on a discounted basis – whether the second respondent should be awarded costs on a discounted basis Nathan v Williams & Anor[2020] QCA 138, cited
COUNSEL:	B O’Donnell QC, with P O’Brien, for the appellant A Crowe QC, and L Copley, for the first respondent C Crawford for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Mullins Lawyers for the appellant Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the first respondent K & L Gates for the second respondent