Paradise Grove Pty Ltd v Stubberfield

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Paradise Grove Pty Ltd v Stubberfield & Another [2002]
QSC 003
PARTIES:  PARADISE GROVE PTY LTD
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD
(first defendant/applicant)
DOROTHY MAY STUBBERFIELD
(second defendant/applicant)
FILE NO:  S 7852 of 1996
DIVISION:  Trial Division
PROCEEDING:  Application
DELIVERED ON:  8 January 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING
DATES: 
27 September and 1 November 2001
JUDGE:  Wilson J
ORDERS: 
1. That the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants in proceeding S 7852 of 1996 be dismissed.
2. That enforcement of the orders for costs made by Douglas J on 20 March 2000 and White J on 9 May 2000 be stayed.
3. That the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including their costs of this application, to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:  PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – where interlocutory orders made against defendant – where Court of Appeal struck out statement of claim - where plaintiff later consented to judgment in favour of defendant – whether Court of Appeal’s order striking out statement of claim was a “fact” giving single judge of Trial Division power to set aside costs ordered against defendant in previous interlocutory applications and/or in the Court of Appeal pursuant to r 668 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 280(1), r 293(1), r 307, r 668, r 689(1), r 703, r 704

of Taxation (2001) 179 ALR 406, considered.
Colgate-Palmolive Company & Another v Cussons Pty Ltd
(1993) 46 FCR 225, considered.
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International
Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1998) 81 ALR 397 at 401,
considered.
O’Neill v Mann [2000] FCA 1680; ACT G 15 of 1994 and
ACT G 29 of 1994, 29 November 2000, considered.
Rockett v The Proprietors of “The Sands” BUP 82 [2001]
QCA 99; Appeal No 4355 of 2000, 20 March 2001,
distinguished.
Stubberfield v Paradise Grove Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 299;
Appeal No 4796 of 2000, 28 July 2000, considered.

Arundel Chiropractic Centre Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner considered.
COUNSEL:  The first defendant/applicant appeared on his own behalf and
(by leave) on behalf of the second defendant/applicant
MD Martin for the respondent plaintiff
SOLICITORS:  The first defendant/applicant appeared on his own behalf and
(by leave) on behalf of the second defendant/applicant
Baker Johnson for the respondent plaintiff
[1] WILSON J: On 10 September 2001 an application was filed by the first and
second defendants (Mr and Mrs Stubberfield) seeking the following relief:

(i) 

an order that the action be dismissed and judgment entered for the defendants pursuant to r 280(1) or r 293(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules;

(ii) 

a declaration pursuant to rr 689(1) and 307(1)(a) of the UCPR that the defendants are entitled to recover from the plaintiff -

(a)

out of pocket expenses in action 7582 of 1996, appeal 2071 of 2000, application 4796 of 2000, and all interlocutory proceedings thereon;

(b)

“any costs determined by the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Paradise Grove Pty Ltd v Stubberfield 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
[2002] QSC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paradise Grove Pty Ltd brought an action against Stubberfield, resulting in interlocutory orders being made against the defendant. Following this, the Court of Appeal struck out the plaintiff's statement of claim, leading to the plaintiff subsequently consenting to a judgment in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff then sought to have the costs ordered against the defendant in previous interlocutory applications and in the Court of Appeal set aside by a single judge of the Trial Division, citing the Court of Appeal's order as a "fact" under rule 668 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court was tasked with determining whether the single judge had the authority to set aside the costs in light of the Court of Appeal's decision and whether the Court of Appeal’s order constituted a "fact" under the rules.

The court examined the legal framework provided by rule 668 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers a single judge to set aside or vary a costs order if there has been a material change in circumstances since the order was made. The court considered whether the Court of Appeal's order striking out the statement of claim could be considered a "material change in circumstances." The court found that the striking out of the statement of claim was not merely a procedural development but a substantive change that affected the overall context and disposition of the case. This change warranted reconsideration of the costs orders previously made.

Ultimately, the court held that the Court of Appeal's order striking out the statement of claim constituted a material change in circumstances, justifying the single judge's power to set aside the costs orders. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, stayed enforcement of the previous costs orders, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the application, on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants in proceeding S 7852 of 1996 be dismissed.

2.

That enforcement of the orders for costs made by Douglas J on 20 March 2000 and White J on 9 May 2000 be stayed.

3.

That the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including their costs of this application, to be assessed 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.