Pott v Clayton Utz

Case [2021] QDC 147

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pott v Clayton Utz [2021] QDC 147

PARTIES:

CECILIA KIT-YING POTT (as Executor of the Estate of BRYAN FREDERICK NEIBOUR POTT, Deceased)

(applicant)

v

CLAYTON UTZ (a registered business name)

(respondent) 

FILE NO:

5000 of 2014

DIVISION:

Civil 

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2021

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   There be judgment entered for the respondent in the sum of $3,915.72.

2.   The respondent’s costs ordered by Douglas J on 22 November 2012 be fixed in the sum of $15,180.00.

3.   The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the applications:

a.   heard on 5 June 2012 fixed in the sum of $28,380.00;

b.   heard on 28 January and 15 December 2015 fixed in the sum of $4,834.50.

4.   There be no order as to costs that were reserved by the Deputy Registrar on 18 December 2014 and by Bowskill QC DCJ (as she then was) on 15 July 2015.

5.   The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this application fixed in the sum of $7,000 plus GST. 

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs limited to counsels’ fees on the standard basis in relation to three interlocutory applications

PROCEDURE – COSTS – whether the quantum of costs should be fixed under r 687(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

PROCEDURE – COSTS – PARTICULAR ITEMS – Senior counsel’s fees – where the respondent briefed senior counsel for two of the applications – whether the court should make an order allowing the respondent to recover its costs with an allowance for senior counsel

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681, r 687, r 743H
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 339(2), s 332(1)

Alborn v Stephens [2010] QCA 58, cited
Aquilina Holdings Pty Ltd v Lynndell Pty Ltd & Anor; Lynndell Pty Ltd & Anor v Capital Finance Australia Limited & Ors (No.2) [2008] QSC 98, applied
Australand Corporation (Qld) Pty Ltd v Johnson & Ors [2007] QSC 128, cited
Baychek v Baychek [2010] NSWSC 987, applied
Beach Petroleum NL & Anor v Johnson & Ors (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119, applied
BHP Coal Pty Ltd v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64, cited
Bruce & Anor v LM Investment Management Limited & Ors (No 2) [2013] QSC 347, cited
Bucknell v Robins [2004] QCA 474, cited
Clayton Utz Lawyers v P & W Enterprises Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 5, cited
Goodwin v O'Driscoll & Anor [2008] QCA 43, cited
Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [2000] FCA 628, cited
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738, cited
JH Lever & Sons Pty Ltd v Maniotis [2006] FCA 1668, cited
Nine Films and Television Pty…

Continue reading Pott v Clayton Utz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pott v Clayton Utz [2021] QDC 147
Case
[2021] QDC 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pott v Clayton Utz involved a dispute between the applicant and the respondent regarding the costs associated with three interlocutory applications. The matter was heard by the court, which was required to determine whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, limited to counsels’ fees on the standard basis in relation to the three interlocutory applications. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the quantum of costs should be fixed under rule 687(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and whether the respondent should be allowed to recover its costs with an allowance for senior counsel.

The court considered the general principle that costs follow the event and the specific provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. It found that the respondent was entitled to an order for costs in relation to the three interlocutory applications, with the quantum of those costs being fixed by the court. The court also determined that the respondent could recover its costs with an allowance for senior counsel, as it had briefed senior counsel for two of the applications. The court fixed the costs at specific amounts, including the respondent's costs of the applications heard on certain dates and the costs of the current application.

In conclusion, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory applications and the current application, with the specific amounts fixed by the court. The costs of the applications heard on particular dates were fixed at certain sums, and the costs of the current application were fixed at another sum. The court did not make any order regarding the costs that were reserved by the Deputy Registrar and the former Chief Judge. The final orders included judgment for the respondent in a specified sum, the fixing of the respondent’s costs ordered by another judge, and the payment of the respondent’s costs of the applications and the current application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be judgment entered for the respondent in the sum of $3,915.72.

2. The respondent’s costs ordered by Douglas J on 22 November 2012 be fixed in the sum of $15,180.00.

3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the applications:

a. heard on 5 June 2012 fixed in the sum of $28,380.00;

b. heard on 28 January and 15 December 2015 fixed in the sum of $4,834.50.

4. There be no order as to costs that were reserved by the Deputy Registrar on 18 December 2014 and by Bowskill QC DCJ (as she then was) on 15 July 2015.

5. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this application fixed in the sum of $7,000 plus GST.

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.