Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2024] QSC 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2024] QSC 244

PARTIES:

PALADIN PROJECTS PTY LTD
ACN 604 051 578

(applicant)

v
VISIE THREE PTY LTD
ACN 601 326 667

(first respondent)

NANCY ALEXANDER (ADJUDICATION REGISTRAR)

(second respondent)

DAVID ROBERT THOMAS SEENEY (ADJUDICATOR J1261305)

(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 6272 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDER:

1. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the proceeding until 12 June 2024, to be assessed on the standard basis.

2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the proceeding after 12 June 2024 to be assessed on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS – INFORMAL OFFERS AND CALDERBANK LETTERS – UNREASONABLE REFUSAL OF OFFER – where the first respondent made a Calderbank offer – where the applicant did not accept that offer within time – whether the expressed reasons why the offer should be accepted were inadequate – whether the offer was clearly more favourable then the final orders – whether the offer was open for a reasonable period of time – whether the applicant acted unreasonably in not accepting the offer.

Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2014 (Qld) s 101(4)
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 10

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681(1), r 681(2), r 684(1), r 684(2), r 702

Aklia Holdings Pty Ltd v The Carter Group Pty Ltd (in liq) & Others (No 2) [2017] QSC 266, applied
Bowen Investments Pty Ltd v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 107, cited
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd(No 3) [2022] QSC 62, cited
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333, cited
Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd v Products for Industry Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 130, cited
Day v Humphrey [2018] QCA 321, cited
Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225, cited
Harbour Radio Pty Limited & Ors v Wagner & Ors [2020] QCA 83, cited
Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435; [2005] VSCA 298, cited
J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd [2014] QCA 23, cited
McGee v Independent Assessor & Anor (No 2) [2024] QCA 7, applied
Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Wagner & Ors [2021] QCA 84, cited
Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 89, cited
S.H.A. Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] QSC 323, applied
Sequel Drill & Blast Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Crushers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] QCA 239, cited
Seven Network Ltd & Anor v News Ltd & Ors (2007)…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd (No 2) 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: [2024] QSC 244
Decision Date: 18 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd (No 2), the court addressed an issue of costs following a dispute over an offer of compromise. The case involved the applicant, Paladin Projects Pty Ltd, and the first respondent, Visie Three Pty Ltd. The primary focus was on the costs associated with the proceedings, specifically in relation to a Calderbank offer made by the first respondent, which the applicant did not accept within the stipulated timeframe. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's refusal of the offer was unreasonable, considering the reasons provided by the first respondent and the comparative favourability of the offer against the final orders.

The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the reasons given for accepting the offer, the relative favourability of the offer compared to the final orders, and the duration for which the offer remained open. The court examined whether the applicant's decision not to accept the offer was unreasonable, particularly in light of the explanations provided by the first respondent and the overall terms of the offer. The applicant argued that the reasons for accepting the offer were inadequate and that the offer was not clearly more favourable than the final orders. The court needed to evaluate these contentions to determine the reasonableness of the applicant’s actions.

In its decision, the court held that the applicant acted unreasonably in refusing the Calderbank offer. The reasons provided by the first respondent were deemed adequate, and the offer was found to be more favourable than the final orders. Additionally, the offer had been open for a reasonable period. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs in the proceeding until 12 June 2024 on the standard basis and from 12 June 2024 onwards on the indemnity basis. This ruling underscores the importance of carefully considering and responding to offers of compromise in civil litigation to avoid adverse cost consequences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the proceeding until 12 June 2024, to be assessed on the standard basis.

2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the proceeding after 12 June 2024 to be assessed on the indemnity 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:	Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2024] QSC 244
PARTIES:	PALADIN PROJECTS PTY LTD ACN 604 051 578 (applicant) v VISIE THREE PTY LTD ACN 601 326 667 (first respondent) NANCY ALEXANDER (ADJUDICATION REGISTRAR) (second respondent) DAVID ROBERT THOMAS SEENEY (ADJUDICATOR J1261305) (third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 6272 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 October 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Williams J
ORDER:	1. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the proceeding until 12 June 2024, to be assessed on the standard basis. 2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the proceeding after 12 June 2024 to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS – INFORMAL OFFERS AND CALDERBANK LETTERS – UNREASONABLE REFUSAL OF OFFER – where the first respondent made a Calderbank offer – where the applicant did not accept that offer within time – whether the expressed reasons why the offer should be accepted were inadequate – whether the offer was clearly more favourable then the final orders – whether the offer was open for a reasonable period of time – whether the applicant acted unreasonably in not accepting the offer. Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2014 (Qld) s 101(4) Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 10 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681(1), r 681(2), r 684(1), r 684(2), r 702 Aklia Holdings Pty Ltd v The Carter Group Pty Ltd (in liq) & Others (No 2) [2017] QSC 266, applied Bowen Investments Pty Ltd v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 107, cited Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd(No 3) [2022] QSC 62, cited Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333, cited Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd v Products for Industry Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 130, cited Day v Humphrey [2018] QCA 321, cited Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225, cited Harbour Radio Pty Limited & Ors v Wagner & Ors [2020] QCA 83, cited Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435; [2005] VSCA 298, cited J & D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd [2014] QCA 23, cited McGee v Independent Assessor & Anor (No 2) [2024] QCA 7, applied Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Wagner & Ors [2021] QCA 84, cited Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 89, cited S.H.A. Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] QSC 323, applied Sequel Drill & Blast Pty Ltd v Whitsunday Crushers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] QCA 239, cited Seven Network Ltd & Anor v News Ltd & Ors (2007)…