Paradise Outdoor Building Company Pty Ltd v Steward (No. 2)

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Paradise Outdoor Building Company Pty Ltd v Steward (No. 2) [2021] QDC 7

PARTIES:

PARADISE OUTDOOR BUILDING COMPANY PTY LTD
(appellant)

v

SHARON MARIA STEWARD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D31/19

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

s 222 Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Mackay Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

29 January 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2020

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, fixed at $2,100.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – unsuccessful appellant – respondent seeks costs on scale for District Court appeal – not opposed by appellant.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 226, s 232A(1)

Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld) Sch 2

CASES:

DL v R (2018) 266 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 26

DPP (Cth) v Poniatowska (2011) 244 CLR 408; [2011] HCA 43

Drew v Makita(Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 21

Mbuzi v Torcetti (2008) 50 MVR 451; [2008] QCA 231

R v Doolheee [2017] 262 CLR 402; [2017] HCA 36

COUNSEL:

K. Mellifont QC with A.J. Smith for the appellant

L. Crowley QC with S. Harburg for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Carter Newell Lawyers for the appellant

Office of Work, Health and Safety Prosecutor for the respondent

Costs

The successful respondent, Sharon Maria Steward, seeks an award of costs on the appeal, pursuant to the scale prescribed under the Justices Regulation 2014. This court’s discretion to award costs is conferred by Justices Act s226, and pursuant to Justices Act s232A(1), the costs are subject to the scale set out as Schedule 2 of the Justices Regulation. In accordance with that scale, and subject to the 20% increase which the court may allow for an appeal to the District Court, the respondent seeks $2,100 in costs as follows:

(a) $1,800 for preparation for and attendance at the appeal hearing on 26 May, 2020; and
(b) $300 for appearance for delivery of judgment on 27 November, 2020.[1]

[1]Respondent’s Submissions on Costs dated 11.12.2020.

The appellant, Paradise Outdoor Building Company Pty Ltd, concedes that the order sought by the respondent is the appropriate order, and the appropriate amount, in the circumstances.[2]
[2]Appellant’s Submissions On Costs 18.12.2020.

Accordingly, the order is as follows:

The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, fixed at $2,100.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the parties involved were Paradise Outdoor Building Company Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Steward, the respondent. The nature of the dispute pertained to the outcome of an appeal that was brought before the court. The appeal was lodged under the provisions of section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and was heard in the District Court. The respondent, who was successful in the appeal, sought costs that were appropriate for an appeal of this nature.

The central legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the respondent was entitled to costs as the successful party in the appeal and, if so, what the appropriate amount of those costs should be. Given that the appellant did not oppose the respondent's claim for costs, the court needed to determine a fair and reasonable amount that reflected the scale of the appeal in the District Court. The court had to balance the need to compensate the respondent for their legal expenses against the public interest in ensuring that legal proceedings are not unduly protracted or expensive.

The court, in its reasoning, noted that the respondent was entitled to costs as the prevailing party in the appeal. It was acknowledged that the appellant had not contested the respondent's claim for costs, which facilitated the determination of the amount. The court took into account the nature and complexity of the appeal, as well as the scale of the proceedings in the District Court. After considering these factors, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $2,100, an amount deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the appellant, Paradise Outdoor Building Company Pty Ltd, pay the respondent, Steward, costs amounting to $2,100. This order reflected the successful party's entitlement to recover their legal expenses from the appellant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Paradise Outdoor Building Company Pty Ltd v Steward (No. 2) [2021] QDC 7
PARTIES:	PARADISE OUTDOOR BUILDING COMPANY PTY LTD (appellant) v SHARON MARIA STEWARD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D31/19
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	s 222 Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Mackay Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	29 January 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2020
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	1. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs, fixed at $2,100.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS – appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – unsuccessful appellant – respondent seeks costs on scale for District Court appeal – not opposed by appellant.
LEGISLATION:	Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 226, s 232A(1) Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld) Sch 2
CASES:	DL v R (2018) 266 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 26 DPP (Cth) v Poniatowska (2011) 244 CLR 408; [2011] HCA 43 Drew v Makita(Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 21 Mbuzi v Torcetti (2008) 50 MVR 451; [2008] QCA 231 R v Doolheee [2017] 262 CLR 402; [2017] HCA 36
COUNSEL:	K. Mellifont QC with A.J. Smith for the appellant L. Crowley QC with S. Harburg for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Carter Newell Lawyers for the appellant Office of Work, Health and Safety Prosecutor for the respondent