Remely v. O'Shea

[2009] QCA 170

[2009] QCA 170

COURT OF APPEAL

MUIR JA

Appeal No 8395 of 2007
SC No 1 of 2006

OTTO REMELY   Applicant

and

MAGISTRATE LEANNE O'SHEA              Not party to appeal

and

GEOFF VANDENBERG  Respondent

and

LARAINE VANDENBERG  Respondent

BRISBANE

DATE 16/06/2009

JUDGMENT

MUIR JA:  On 4 December 2008 Justice Holmes dismissed three applications of the applicant Mr Remely concerning costs assessments and ordered that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity basis.  The costs statement was posted to the applicant by the second respondent's solicitors on 23 April 2009.  Mr Remely admits having received that costs statement.  There is evidence that the costs statement was prepared by an experienced registered costs assessor. 

The applicant did not request of the respondent's solicitors any extension of time for the service of a notice of objection or otherwise communicate with them concerning the service of the costs statement.  Instead he filed the application before me on 15 May 2009.  It seems that it was possibly mailed on 11 May 2009.  It was unsupported by any affidavit. 

The applicant does not identify any item in the costs statement, which incidentally is not before me, as erroneous in principle or manifestly excessive.  He does point to the affidavit of Ms Parsons relied on by the second respondent, which includes an estimate of $10,000 for the costs of today.  I must say that that figure strikes me as surprisingly high but it does not appear to bear on the matter before me.

The applicant is a very experienced litigant.  He has made it plain that he has scant regard for obligations imposed by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules or for the rights of other parties to litigation.  I refer, for example, to paragraph 7 of the applicant's affidavit sworn on 26 May 2009 in Bundaberg Registry in matter number 1 of 2006.  In my view despite the applicant's contentions concerning the fact of delay as being the result of his asserted need for compliance with rules 708 and 710 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, no case for an extension of time has been made out and it would be unjust to grant the applicant's application.

All that would be served would be to further heap costs upon costs and I decline to assist in any such course of action.  Accordingly I dismiss the application for extension of time with costs.

...

MUIR JA:  The order for costs will be as I intimated, that is, costs on the standard basis.  The bringing of this application, in my view, cannot be categorised as falling within that range of conduct which justifies an order other than on the usual basis.  And, in any event, I imagine that the basis upon which the costs were ordered is likely to be entirely academic.