Palmer v Gibson (No 2)

Case [2025] QSC 187

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Palmer v Gibson & Anor (No 2) [2025] QSC 187

PARTIES:

CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER

(Plaintiff)

v
HEATHER GIBSON

(1st Defendant)

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

(2nd Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 15650/24

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1st Defendant’s submissions on costs dated 28 July 2025
2nd Defendant’s submissions on costs dated 28 July 2025

Plaintiff’s submissions on costs dated 1 August 2025

JUDGE:

Smith J

ORDER:

1.   I order the plaintiff pay the costs of the first and second defendants of and incidental to the applications (dated 6 January 2025 and 24 April 2025)  on the standard basis.

2.   I order the plaintiff pay the first and second defendants’ costs (on the standard basis) thrown away by reason of:

(a)   The dismissal of the claims for declaratory relief;

(b) The dismissal of the claim under section 38 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – where the plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief were dismissed but where the claims for misuse of a public office and breach of duty were not struck out – where a finding was made that the civil proceedings would fragment the criminal process – where the civil proceedings were stayed – whether conduct of the plaintiff was such that indemnity costs should be ordered against him

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 58
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681
Chaina v Alvro Homes Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCCA 353, cited
Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 801; (1993) 46 FCR 225, applied
Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225, applied
Johnston v Herrod [2012] QCA 361, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Bone [2014] QCA 179, cited
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72, applied
Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164, applied
Palmer v Gibson & Anor [2025] QSC 169, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr D. Villa SC, Mr K. Byrne and Ms W. Liu for the plaintiff
Mr S. McLeod KC and Mr B. McMillan  for the first defendant
Ms F. Gordon KC, Mr M. Hosking and Mr S. Walpole for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

G Smith Law for the plaintiff
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia for the first defendant
Johnson Winter Slattery for the second defendant

Introduction

  1. This is the costs decision consequent on the decision I gave in Palmer v Gibson & Anor.[1]

    Submissions

    First Defendant’s Submissions

  2. The first defendant submits that she should have her costs of the interlocutory application and her costs thrown away in relation to the plaintiffs claims that have been dismissed or struck out. It is submitted that costs should follow the event and there is no disentitling conduct on the part of Ms Gibson to justify the departure from the usual approach.…

Continue reading Palmer v Gibson (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Palmer v Gibson (No 2) [2025] QSC 187
Case
[2025] QSC 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Palmer v Gibson (No 2) involved a dispute where the plaintiff, Mr Palmer, sought various remedies against the defendants, Mr Gibson and another. The primary claims included declaratory relief, misuse of a public office, and breach of duty. The case was heard and decided by the court, which needed to address whether the plaintiff’s conduct warranted the imposition of indemnity costs against him.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the implications of the plaintiff’s claims, particularly in light of the civil proceedings' impact on the criminal process. The court was tasked with determining whether the civil claims for declaratory relief and misuse of a public office should be dismissed and, if so, whether the plaintiff’s conduct justified ordering indemnity costs against him. The court also had to consider the broader consequences of fragmenting the criminal process through civil litigation.

The court found that the civil proceedings would indeed fragment the criminal process, leading to the dismissal of the claims for declaratory relief and under section 38 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The court further determined that the plaintiff’s conduct was such that it warranted the imposition of indemnity costs against him. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis, including those thrown away due to the dismissed claims. This decision highlighted the court's stance on the need to prevent civil proceedings from interfering with ongoing criminal matters.

The court’s final orders included the imposition of costs on the plaintiff for the applications and for the costs incurred due to the dismissal of the claims. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first and second defendants’ costs on the standard basis, reflecting the court's decision on the conduct and the need to deter similar actions in future litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I order the plaintiff pay the costs of the first and second defendants of and incidental to the applications (dated 6 January 2025 and 24 April 2025) on the standard basis.

2. I order the plaintiff pay the first and second defendants’ costs (on the standard basis) thrown away by reason of:

(a) The dismissal of the claims for declaratory relief;

(b) The dismissal of the claim under section 38 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

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.