R E & G L Coombes Investments Pty Ltd v Bosso

[1993] QCA 094

COURT OF APPEAL

FITZGERALD P
PINCUS JA

McPHERSON JA

Appeal No 248 of 1992

R E and G L COOMBES INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Respondent

ANTHONY BOSSO Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/03/93

JUDGMENT

T 18/TW M/T COA93/431

THE PRESIDENT: Well by consent there will be orders in terms of the draft placed before the Court by counsel. In addition to that I would order the respondent to pay the appellant’s taxed costs of and incidental to the appeal, but not to exceed the sum of $2,000. In my view the better view seems to be that this matter was not properly canvassed below by the appellant, but on the other hand when the respondent indicated in January he was prepared to make a concession and to allow the appeal to succeed, it was encumbent upon it to pay the costs up until that time. It’s failure to do so has meant that those costs have been significantly increased.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The order of the Court is as I have indicated. Just before you go, Mr Jones, you should file that affidavit, I’m told it’s not filed. It has been filed. It wasn’t filed but it is now, thank you.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, R E & G L Coombes Investments Pty Ltd sought an appeal against the decision of Anthony Bosso. The dispute originated from a lower court decision where Coombes Investments challenged the actions taken by Bosso, who was involved in a property transaction. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the primary judge was Fitzgerald P, with Pincus JA and McPherson JA also participating in the judgment.

The legal issues before the court were centered on the costs incurred during the appeal process and the appropriate allocation of those costs between the appellant and the respondent. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appellant, Bosso, should be liable for the costs of the appeal and, if so, to what extent those costs should be awarded. The court also had to consider whether the respondent's concession, made after the appeal had progressed significantly, should affect the allocation of costs.

The court's reasoning was that while the appellant had not adequately argued the costs issue in the lower court, the respondent had conceded the appeal after the costs had already escalated. The court concluded that the respondent should bear the costs of the appeal up until the point of the concession. The President ordered that the respondent would pay the appellant's taxed costs, not exceeding $2,000, acknowledging the respondent's failure to make the concession earlier. Both Pincus JA and McPherson JA concurred with the President's judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established