Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2023] QSC 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2023] QSC 21

PARTIES:

KAREN MICHELLE REDDOCK

(plaintiff)

v
ST&T PTY LTD (ACN 109 724 594)

(first defendant)

AND

BORAL RESOURCES (QLD) PTY LIMITED (ACN 009 671 809)

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 4144 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Applications for costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.   The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the claim against the second defendant to be assessed on the indemnity basis.

2.   The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the claim against the first defendant incurred after 22 September 2020.

3.   The second defendant pay the first defendant’s costs of the contribution claims incurred after 22 September 2020.

COUNSEL:

R Lynch and J Trost for the plaintiff
J McClymont and P Nevard for the first defendant
R Morton for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the first defendant
Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the second defendant

Jackson J:

On 19 December 2022 it was adjudged[1] that the first defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $633,253.53 and the second defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of 727,131.81. The judgment followed a trial on the plaintiff’s claim for damages for personal injuries for negligence against her employer in carrying out her work as an employed truck driver and for negligence against the second defendant for directions given to the plaintiff in connection with carrying out that work. Each of the defendants was found to have been negligent. The differing amounts of the awards against them are explained because of statutory modification of the otherwise applicable common law principles of damages as against the first defendant under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“WCRA”). To the extent that the liabilities of the defendants as concurrent tortfeasors were in respect of the same damage satisfaction of one liability is satisfaction of the other liability as against the plaintiff.
[1]Reddock v ST & T Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QSC 293.
It was also adjudged that the liability of the defendants inter se on apportionment of their claims for contribution against one another as concurrent tortfeasors for the same damage was 50 percent. The ultimate amounts of the entitlements to contribution differed because of reasons not relevant to the remaining questions of costs.
The plaintiff and the first defendant each apply for orders for costs against the second defendant. Although the plaintiff was successful in her claim for damages against the first defendant, there must be no order for costs as between the plaintiff and the first defendant and each party is to bear their own costs, because the amount of the judgment was less than the plaintiff’s written final offer on the claim against the first defendant at the compulsory conference,[2] but more than the…

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.

Continue reading Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] QSC 21
Case: [2023] QSC 21
Decision Date: 23 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd (No 2) involves the plaintiff, Reddock, who is pursuing a claim against the first and second defendants, ST&T Pty Ltd, and its subsidiary. The nature of the dispute revolves around contractual obligations and the associated costs incurred in the legal proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues the court had to address included the determination of costs associated with the legal proceedings and the allocation of those costs between the parties. Specifically, the court needed to decide on the costs incurred by the plaintiff against both defendants, as well as the costs related to the contribution claims made between the defendants themselves. The court also needed to address the issue of indemnity costs, which are typically awarded to the successful party in litigation to ensure they are fully compensated for the costs of the legal process.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the facts and the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation process. It found that the second defendant should bear the costs of the plaintiff's claim against it and the costs incurred by the plaintiff against the first defendant after a specific date. Additionally, the court ruled that the second defendant should cover the costs of the contribution claims made by the first defendant against it, incurred after the same date. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the parties' conduct and the legal principles governing cost recovery in civil litigation.

The final orders of the court required the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the claim against it, as well as the costs incurred by the plaintiff against the first defendant after 22 September 2020, both on an indemnity basis. Furthermore, the second defendant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs of the contribution claims incurred after the same date. This ruling ensures that the costs are fairly allocated among the parties in accordance with the outcomes of the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the claim against the second defendant to be assessed on the indemnity basis.

2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the claim against the first defendant incurred after 22 September 2020.

3. The second defendant pay the first defendant’s costs of the contribution claims incurred after 22 September 2020.

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.

CITATION:	Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd & Anor (No 2) [2023] QSC 21
PARTIES:	KAREN MICHELLE REDDOCK (plaintiff) v ST&T PTY LTD (ACN 109 724 594) (first defendant) AND BORAL RESOURCES (QLD) PTY LIMITED (ACN 009 671 809) (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 4144 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Applications for costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 February 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Written submissions
JUDGE:	Jackson J
ORDER:	The order of the court is that: 1. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the claim against the second defendant to be assessed on the indemnity basis. 2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the claim against the first defendant incurred after 22 September 2020. 3. The second defendant pay the first defendant’s costs of the contribution claims incurred after 22 September 2020.
COUNSEL:	R Lynch and J Trost for the plaintiff J McClymont and P Nevard for the first defendant R Morton for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the first defendant Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the second defendant