Robertson v Vlahos (No 2)

[2010] QSC 475

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robertson v Vlahos (No 2) [2010] QSC 475

PARTIES:

GERALDINE FOOI-FONG ROBERTSON

(plaintiff/respondent)

v

LESLEY JOY VLAHOS

and

ANASTASI VLAHOS

(defendants/applicants)

FILE NO/S:

BS12451/08

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Costs order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions 30 November, 10 December 2010

JUDGE:

Margaret Wilson J

ORDER:

The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including the application filed on 14 December 2009, but excluding the costs of and incidental to the appearances on 15 January 2010, 1 February 2010, 1 March 2010 and 22 March 2010 to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE
GENERAL RULE – COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – where application by defendants for summary judgment – where plaintiff’s claim dismissed – where abuse of process – where contract unenforceable – where plaintiff to pay defendants’ costs – whether costs to be assessed on indemnity basis

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 26(4), 27, 28, 681, 693, 698, 702, 703, 705, Part 3, Division 1

Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225, cited
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd & Ors (1988) 81 ALR 397, cited
J-corp Pty Limited v Australian Builders Labourers Federated Union of Workers[1993] FCA 42, cited

COUNSEL:

DRL Laws for the applicant defendants
The respondent plaintiff appeared on her own behalf

SOLICITORS:

McCarthy Durie Ryan Neil for the applicant defendants

1. Margaret Wilson J: On 12 November 2010 I gave judgment on the defendants’ application for summary judgment against the plaintiff. I ordered that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed.

1. Since then I have received written submissions on costs. Also, the plaintiff has lodged an appeal against my order dismissing the claim.

1. It is appropriate that I deal with the question of costs without regard to the appeal which has been lodged. My decision dismissing the claim stands unless and until it is set aside or varied by the Court of Appeal.

1. The defendants seek costs of the whole proceeding, including reserved costs, on the indemnity basis. The plaintiff submits that there should be no order for costs.

1. The proceeding was commenced on 2 December 2008. A notice of intention to defend and defence was filed on 12 January 2009, and a reply was filed on 21 January 2009.

1. After the pleadings closed, there was no activity on the court file for some months. On 22 October 2009 a deputy registrar gave directions for the further conduct of the proceeding consequent on a case flow intervention notice. He made orders for the defendant to provide particulars by 23 October 2009, the plaintiff to provide an amended reply by 6 November 2009, mutual disclosure to be completed by 6 November 2009, and a request for trial date to be filed by 20 November 2009.

1. It seems that none of those directions was complied with.

1. The defendants changed…