Oaks Hotels & Resorts Limited v Knauer

Link copied
Case Copied 52 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Oaks Hotels & Resorts Limited v Knauer [2020] QCATA 90

PARTIES:

OAKS HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED
ACN 113 972 366

(applicant)
v

NATASHA CORAL KNAUER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL095-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL005-12

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2020

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

1.   The Applicant is granted leave to appeal limited to the issue of the award of costs on the indemnity basis from 6 April 2016 onwards.

2.   Otherwise leave to appeal is refused.

3.   The appeal is allowed.

4.   Paragraph 2 of the Orders of 5 March 2019 is set aside and in lieu it is ordered that the Third Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

5.   The parties shall file (and serve on the other party), within 14 days of the date of delivery of these orders, written submissions (no longer than five pages) in respect of the question of costs of the application for leave to appeal and appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS – QUEENSLAND – LEAVE GIVEN TO APPEAL – where appeal against costs order – whether error by tribunal – whether leave should be given – whether appeal tribunal should make order for costs – whether costs should be on indemnity basis – where there is a question as to the application of principles relating to Calderbank offers

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 3(a), 9(1), 33(1), 34, 35(1), 36, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 146, 147, 224, Schedule 2 s 17(a)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld), r 86

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), Chapter 9 Part 5

Al-Bayati v NRMA Insurance for the Nominal Defendant (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 14

Brittain v The Commonwealth (No. 2) [2004] NSWCA 427

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333

Cutts v Head [1984] 1 Ch 290

Danidale Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] VSC 552

Dee Why Auto Clinic v Roads and Maritime Services (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 478

Dwyer Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Dwyer Quality Homes v Dunne [2018] QCATA 193

Evans Shire Council v Richardson [2006] NSWCA 61

Field v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1957) 99 CLR 285

Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd v Andersen [2002] 1 Qd R 233

Groves v Matt O’Connor & Associates Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 817

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Huntsman Chemical Company Australia Ltd v International Pools Australia Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 242

J&D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 23

Johns Perry Industries Pty Ltd v International Rigging (Aust.) Pty Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 556

Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] QCATA 43

McAndrew v AAI Ltd (No 2) [2013] QSC 317

McGee v Queensland Building and Construction Commission & Anor [2018] QCATA 124

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Oaks Hotels & Resorts Limited v Knauer and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] QCATA 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Oaks Hotels & Resorts Limited v Knauer involved an appeal concerning an order for costs made in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary dispute centred on whether the appeal tribunal had erred in its assessment of costs, particularly regarding the application of indemnity costs from a specific date. The applicant, Oaks Hotels & Resorts Limited, sought leave to appeal the costs order, arguing that the tribunal had misapplied the principles related to Calderbank offers.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appeal tribunal had erred in its decision, whether leave to appeal should be granted, and whether the appeal tribunal should order costs on an indemnity basis. Central to these issues was the interpretation and application of Calderbank offers, which are formal offers to settle made by one party to another during litigation, typically with an undertaking as to costs if the offer is not accepted and the party making the offer is ultimately successful.

The court found that the appeal tribunal had indeed erred in its application of the principles relating to Calderbank offers. The court held that the tribunal should not have ordered costs on an indemnity basis from a particular date. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order for indemnity costs was set aside. Instead, it was ordered that the costs of the proceeding should be on the standard basis. The court also directed that the parties submit written submissions regarding the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicant is granted leave to appeal limited to the issue of the award of costs on the indemnity basis from 6 April 2016 onwards.

2. Otherwise leave to appeal is refused.

3. The appeal is allowed.

4. Paragraph 2 of the Orders of 5 March 2019 is set aside and in lieu it is ordered that the Third Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

5. The parties shall file (and serve on the other party), within 14 days of the date of delivery of these orders, written submissions (no longer than five pages) in respect of the question of costs of the application for leave to appeal and appeal.

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.