Rahman v Dubs

The plaintiff, Rahman, commenced proceedings against the defendant, Dubs, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Rahman's claim arose out of alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentations in relation to the sale of a property. The case was eventually set down for a pre-trial case management conference. Prior to the conference, the trial judge made an order that the case proceed on the pleadings, and that any application for further discovery or for an adjournment of the case management conference would require leave. The case subsequently proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the trial judge's order. Despite the clear orders of the trial judge and Court of Appeal, Rahman made several further applications to set aside the order that the case proceed on the pleadings. These applications were made contrary to the requirement that leave be obtained from the trial judge or Registrar prior to filing. Dubs made an application for costs against Rahman pursuant to r 112 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Civil Procedure Rules 2007. The trial judge found that the applications were frivolous and vexatious and dismissed them, ordering Rahman to pay Dubs' costs on an indemnity basis.

The primary legal issue for the trial judge to determine was whether Rahman's applications were frivolous or vexatious. In making this determination, the trial judge had regard to the orders already made by the trial judge and Court of Appeal, and the fact that Rahman had made further applications without seeking leave as required. The trial judge found that Rahman's applications were frivolous and vexatious, and that an order for indemnity costs was appropriate. The trial judge emphasised that the orders of the court were binding, and that Rahman's repeated disregard of those orders was a clear abuse of process. The trial judge also noted that the applications had caused unnecessary delay and expense, and that an order for indemnity costs was necessary to deter Rahman from making further frivolous applications.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Rahman's appeal against the trial judge's order for indemnity costs. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusion that Rahman's applications were frivolous and vexatious was open, and that the order for indemnity costs was appropriate. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the orders of the court were binding, and that parties were required to comply with them. The Court of Appeal also noted that the applications had caused unnecessary delay and expense, and that an order for indemnity costs was necessary to deter Rahman from making further frivolous applications. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's order for indemnity costs was not an abuse of process, and that it was appropriate to make the order assessable forthwith.