Rider v Pix

Case [2019] QCA 257

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rider & Anor v Pix [2019] QCA 257

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JOHN RIDER
KATE RIDER
(appellants)
v
TREVOR KEITH PIX
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3665 of 2019
SC No 12976 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 235 and [2019] QSC 45 (Holmes CJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Flanagan J

ORDER:

The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS – INFORMAL OFFERS AND CALDERBANK LETTERS – UNREASONABLE REFUSAL OF OFFERS – where, prior to the first return date of the appeal, the respondent made two offers to settle the appeal – where the costs of the trial were pending at the date of the offers – where the offers to settle dealt with the costs of the trial – where the respondent offered to accept a smaller sum than he was awarded at trial – where the appellants rejected the offers – where the Court dismissed the appeal – whether the respondent should be awarded his costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681, r 702, r 703, r 771

Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333, cited
Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 536, cited
Deepcliffe Pty Ltd & Anor v The Council of the City of Gold Coast & Anor[2001] QCA 396, cited
Financial Integrity Pty Ltd v Farmer and Bravium Pty Ltd (No 4) [2014] ACTSC 145, cited
Globaltech Pty Ltd v Pareek [2006] WASC 30, cited
Hazeldene’s Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) (2005) 13 VR 435; [2005] VSCA 298, applied
Pix v Suncoast Marine Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QSC 195, related
Reeves v O’Riley[2013] QCA 285, cited
Rider & Anor v Pix[2019] QCA 182, related
Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Company Ltd [1903] 2 KB 533, cited
Secretary to the Department of Business and Innovation v Murdesk Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] VSC 586, cited
Tector v FAI General Insurance Company Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 463; [2000] QCA 426, cited

COUNSEL:

A S Marinac (sol) for the appellants
G A Thompson QC, with S R Grant, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Pacific Maritime Lawyers for the appellants
Hall & Wilcox for the respondent

  1. SOFRONOFF P:  I agree with Flanagan J.

  2. MORRISON JA:  I have read the reasons of Flanagan J and agree with those reasons and the order his Honour proposes.

  3. FLANAGAN J:  On 10 September 2019, this Court dismissed an appeal against two decisions of the Chief Justice.[1]  As it transpires, the respondent, Mr Pix,…

Continue reading Rider v Pix

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rider v Pix [2019] QCA 257
Case
[2019] QCA 257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case are Rider (the appellant) and Pix (the respondent). The dispute centred on whether Pix should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis after the appeal was dismissed. The case was heard in an unspecified appellate court. Prior to the first return date of the appeal, Pix made two offers to settle the appeal, which included provisions regarding the costs of the trial. Pix offered to accept a smaller sum than awarded at trial, but the appellants rejected these offers. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the court.

The court was required to determine whether Pix should be awarded costs on the indemnity basis due to the appellants' unreasonable refusal of the offers to settle. The appellants argued that the respondent's offers did not comply with the requirements of section 60C(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (Cth) because they were not made in writing. However, the court rejected this argument, finding that the offers were indeed made in writing, albeit not in the form of a formal written document. The court also considered the respondent's reasonable entitlement to be awarded costs on the indemnity basis due to the appellants' unreasonable refusal to accept the offers.

The court found that the respondent was entitled to be awarded costs on the indemnity basis. The respondent's offers to settle, which included provisions for the costs of the trial, were reasonable and in compliance with the relevant legislation. The appellants' refusal to accept these offers was deemed unreasonable, as they had the opportunity to settle the matter at a lower cost. The court held that the respondent was entitled to recover the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the trial, on an indemnity basis.

The final order of the court was that the appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. This included the costs of the trial, reflecting the court's determination that the respondent was entitled to be awarded costs on the indemnity basis due to the appellants' unreasonable refusal of the offers to settle.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.