Park v Nam (No. 2)

[2023] QDC 189

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Park v Nam & Anor (No. 2) [2023] QDC 189

PARTIES:

MINGYU PARK

(plaintiff)
v
SUWOO NAM
(first defendant)
and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED

(second defendant)

FILE NO:

DC No 1886 of 2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 October 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDER:

1. The claim by the plaintiff is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of the claim to be assessed on the standard District Court basis pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where plaintiff brought an action in negligence against defendants in relation to a motor vehicle collision – where plaintiff’s claim dismissed – whether the plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs

LEGISLATION:

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

Andrew Stobie for the plaintiff

Richard Lynch for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Rin Kim Law for the plaintiff

McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendants

Reasons for Decision

1. The substantive judgment and reasons were delivered on 17 August 2023.  On that date, an order was made dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.

2. At that time, orders were made for the filing of submissions as to costs, if the parties were unable to reach agreement as to costs.  The plaintiff’s submissions were to be filed by Friday, 8 September 2023.

3. Upon a request from the plaintiff’s solicitors, a 14-day extension was granted for the filing of submissions by the plaintiff’s solicitors.  The request was prompted by the inability of the plaintiff’s solicitors to obtain instructions from their client.

4. By the end of that period, the plaintiff’s solicitors were still not in a position to file submissions.  The defendants’ solicitors took the appropriate course and filed their submissions as to costs on 29 September 2023.

5. Following receipt of the defendants’ submissions as to costs, the parties were told that a further order would be made giving the plaintiff’s solicitors until 18 October 2023 to file submissions in reply but that, in the absence of submissions, an order as to costs would be made in chambers and the reasons and order would be forwarded to the parties by email.

6. As the defendants’ solicitors acknowledged in their submissions, often offers in relation to both the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) are relevant to the formulation of costs in these particular matters. The defendants’ solicitors confirmed that at a compulsory conference pursuant to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), the second defendant had maintained its denial of liability and made an offer to the plaintiff in the sum of $0.00.

7. The defendants accept that as such the defendants had not made an offer to the plaintiff more beneficial than the judgment.  Further, it was also not suggested that the plaintiff made any offer more beneficial than the judgment.  The defendants seek an order that the plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

8. In those circumstances, and consistent with the provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the plaintiff ought to pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

9. Accordingly, an order will be made in the terms sought.