SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Pollock v Thiess Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2014] QSC 121
PARTIES:
SCOTT WILLIAM POLLOCK
Plaintiff
v
THIESS PTY LTD
ACN 010 221 486First Defendant
and
AUSTRALIAN BEARINGS CORPORATION PTY LTD
ACN 139 918 013Second Defendant
and
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
Third Defendant
FILE NO/S:
S234 /2013
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
16 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
On the papers – final submissions received 30 May 2014
JUDGE:
McMeekin J
ORDERS:
1. The first and second defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceeding (excluding the costs reserved on 24 January 2014) on the indemnity basis to be agreed or assessed, in the proportions of 35% and 65% respectively
2. The first and second defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the plaintiff's application filed on 16 January 2014
3. The third defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings from 24 April 2013 (excluding the costs reserved on 24 January 2014) to be agreed or assessed
4. The first and second defendants indemnify the third defendant in respect of the costs payable by it to the plaintiff, in the proportions of 35% and 65% respectively.CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – where the plaintiff made a mandatory final offer lower than the court awarded damages – where there are reserved costs – where the plaintiff and third defendant are agreed on costs set at the standard basis – where the plaintiff seeks indemnity costs against the first and second defendant – whether the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs against the first and second defendant as a result of the trial and the reserved costs
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) s 4 , s 39, s 20, s 22, s 23, s 25, s 40(8)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 680
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 292, s 316, s 318CColgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 cited
Gibbings-Johns v Corliss (No 2) [2010] QSC 78 distinguished
Lawes v Nominal Defendant [2007] QSC 103 citedCOUNSEL:
G O’Driscoll for the Plaintiff
K Downes QC for the First Defendant
G Crow QC and S Deaves for the Second Defendant
B Charrington for the Third Defendant
SOLICITORS:
Suthers Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Sparke Helmore for the First Defendant
DibbsBarker for the Second Defendant
Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the Third Defendant
McMeekin J: What is in issue between the parties is the effect of a mandatory final offer (“MFO”) made by the plaintiff to the first and second defendants to settle his claim for $750,000 following a conference held pursuant to s 39 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) ("PIPA") and prior to the issuing of these proceedings.
On 16 May 2014 I delivered my reasons in these proceedings. Liability was not in issue. I indicated that there should be judgment for the…
Continue reading Pollock v Thiess Pty Ltd (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pollock v Thiess Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] QSC 121
- Case
- [2014] QSC 121
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the plaintiff's final offer, which was lower than the damages awarded by the court, did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking indemnity costs from the first and second defendants. The court reasoned that the purpose of the final offer provisions is to encourage settlement and provide a benchmark for the assessment of costs. However, these provisions do not affect the entitlement to indemnity costs where a party has acted reasonably and in good faith throughout the proceedings. The court also noted that the reserved costs did not impact the plaintiff’s entitlement to indemnity costs against the first and second defendants, as the reserved costs related to specific aspects of the proceedings and did not address the overall costs dispute.
Consequently, the court ordered that the first and second defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, excluding the reserved costs, on the indemnity basis to be agreed or assessed, in the proportions of 35% and 65% respectively. Additionally, the first and second defendants were ordered to indemnify the third defendant in respect of the costs payable by it to the plaintiff, also in the proportions of 35% and 65% respectively. The first and second defendants were further ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application filed on 16 January 2014. The third defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings from 24 April 2013, excluding the reserved costs, to be agreed or assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The first and second defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceeding (excluding the costs reserved on 24 January 2014) on the indemnity basis to be agreed or assessed, in the proportions of 35% and 65% respectively
2. The first and second defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the plaintiff's application filed on 16 January 2014
3. The third defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings from 24 April 2013 (excluding the costs reserved on 24 January 2014) to be agreed or assessed
4. The first and second defendants indemnify the third defendant in respect of the costs payable by it to the plaintiff, in the proportions of 35% and 65% respectively.
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.