QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD -v- COFFEY [2015] WADC 110 (S)

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WADC 110 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2622/2015	Heard:	10, SEPTEMBER 2015, 24 MARCH 2016 & 6 MAY 2016
Coram:	DAVIS DCJ	Delivered:	17/09/15
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Delivered:	9/06/16
No of pages:	28	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Defendants successful in part on application for special costs orders No apportionment of costs made Costs to be payable in any event Defendants' claim for compensation dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD JOSHUA COFFEY FRANK RICCI JGQ DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD JGQ COMMERCIAL PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Defendants successful in application to discharge freezing order Whether special costs order should be made Costs of compliance with ancillary order Whether successful defendants should have all or only a portion of their costs Whether costs should be payable forthwith Whether defendants entitled to compensation pursuant to plaintiff's undertaking
Legislation:	Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) s 280
Case References:	Air Express Ltd v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 249 Bowen v Alsanto Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 39 (S) Cape Lambert Resources Ltd v MCC Australia Sanjin Mining Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 66 (S) Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179 (S) Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd [No 5] [2012] WASC 382 Cristovao v Butcher Paull & Calder [2008] WADC 49 Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd [2012] WADC 43 European Bank Ltd v Evans (2010) 240 CLR 432 Fagan v Morien [2008] WASC 54 (S) Fraser v Burswood Resort (Management) Ltd [2014] WASCA 130 (S) Frigger v Lean [2012] WASCA 66 Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] WASCA 69 Heartlink Ltd v Jones as liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) Herbertson v Morton [2013] WADC 7 (S) Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Whitton; in the matter of Spencer (Bankrupt) (No 2) [2011] FCA 845 Miller v Evans [2010] WASC 127 (S) Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASC 113 (S) O'Rourke v P & B Corp Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 36 (S) QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Coffey [2015] WADC 110 Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 727; (2009) 257 ALR 503 Singh v Kaur Bal [2011] WASC 303 (S)

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD -v- COFFEY [2015] WADC 110 (S) CORAM : DAVIS DCJ HEARD : 10 SEPTEMBER 2015, 24 MARCH 2016 & 6 MAY 2016 DELIVERED : 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 9 JUNE 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 2622 of 2015 BETWEEN : QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD

Plaintiff

AND

JOSHUA COFFEY

First Defendant

FRANK RICCI

Second Defendant

JGQ DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

Third Defendant

JGQ COMMERCIAL PTY LTD

Third Party

Catchwords:

Costs - Defendants successful in application to discharge freezing order - Whether special…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Coffey and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] WADC 110 (S)
Decision Date: 17 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Coffey involved a dispute between the plaintiff, QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd, and the defendant, Coffey. The primary issue was whether the defendants, having been successful in an application to discharge a freezing order, should be granted a special costs order. The court was also required to decide whether the successful defendants should be awarded all or only a portion of their costs, including the costs of compliance with an ancillary order. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the costs should be payable forthwith and if the defendants were entitled to compensation pursuant to the plaintiff's undertaking.

The court examined the circumstances under which the freezing order was discharged and the extent of the defendants' success in the application. It considered the nature of the ancillary order and the defendants' compliance costs. The court concluded that the defendants were entitled to a special costs order due to their success in discharging the freezing order. However, it did not apportion the costs between the parties, meaning the defendants were awarded all their costs. The court also ruled that the costs should be payable forthwith. Finally, the court dismissed the defendants' claim for compensation under the plaintiff's undertaking, finding that the defendants had not met the necessary criteria.

The court's decision resulted in the defendants being successful in part on their application for special costs orders. The order specified that no apportionment of costs would be made, and the costs would be payable in any event. The defendants' claim for compensation was dismissed. This ruling clarified the principles governing special costs orders in cases where defendants are successful in discharging freezing orders, emphasizing the importance of the defendants' success in the application and the need for prompt payment of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defendants successful in part on application for special costs orders

No apportionment of costs made

Costs to be payable in any event

Defendants' claim for compensation dismissed

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.