Paroz v Paroz

[2010] QSC 157

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Paroz v Paroz & Ors [2010] QSC 157
PARTIES:	LESLIE PAROZ (plaintiff) v IAN PAROZ (first defendant) JENNIFER PAROZ (second defendant) LEWIS PAROZ (third defendant) KAREN PAROZ (fourth defendant)
FILE NO/S:	9656 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	14 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 April 2010
JUDGE:	Peter Lyons J
ORDER:	The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of the action to be assessed on the standard basis until 3 July 2008, and thereafter the plaintiff pay the defendants’ cost of the action to date, to be assessed on the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff made frequent and unnecessary amendments to pleadings – where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff’s frequent changes of legal representatives resulted in delay – where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud – where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff did not comply with court orders – where the defendant alleged that the plaintiff pleaded unsustainable causes of action – where the defendants alleged that some of the plaintiff’s pleadings were plainly deficient – where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff failed to admit facts – where the defendants alleged that the plaintiff rejected offers to settle – whether it is appropriate to order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis
Todrell Pty Ltd v Finch & Ors; Croydon Capital Pty Ltd v
Todrell Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] QSC 386, cited
COUNSEL:	N H Ferrett for the plaintiff A P Collins for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	HopgoodGanim Lawyers for the plaintiff Ernst & Young Law for the defendant

1. For many years, the plaintiff and the defendants carried on a farming business, for most of the time pursuant to a written partnership agreement (the Farming Partnership) on land owned by the plaintiff and the two male defendants (who are the plaintiff’s brothers), again, the land being held for most of the time under a written partnership agreement (the Land Partnership). As a consequence of a trial held in December 2009 and reasons delivered on 25 February 2010, I have determined a substantial part of the plaintiff’s claim adversely to the plaintiff, though some issues, and some aspects of the plaintiff’s claim, remain to be decided. The defendants seek an order that the plaintiff pay their costs to date on an indemnity basis. For the plaintiff, it is submitted that any order for costs should be made in the defendants’ favour, on the standard basis.

The contentions

1. In essence, the defendants contend that the plaintiff should be ordered to pay indemnity costs on a number of grounds, summarised (in an order slightly different from that in which they were presented on behalf of the defendants) as follows:

   (a)         frequent and unnecessary amendments to pleadings;

   (b)        frequent changes to the plaintiff’s legal representation,…