Roxo v Gamble - [2025] QMC 14

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Roxo v Gamble & Ors [2025] QMC 14

PARTIES:

Ross Gamble

(Plaintiff)

v

Ian Gamble

(First Defendant)

&

Ashley Gamble

(Second Defendant)

&

Gamble Family Trust ABN 43 394 695 105

(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

M4494/18

DIVISION:
ORIGINATING COURT:

Civil

Brisbane Magistrates Court

MAGISTRATE:

HEARING:

DELIVERED:

CATCHWORDS:

Pinder

On the papers

21/05/2025

COSTS – GENERAL RULE AS TO COSTS – STANDARD OR INDEMNITY BASIS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681, r 693

Roxo v Gamble & Ors [2025] QMC 3

Oshlock v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72

Peter Carter Transport Pty Ltd-v-The Swansaway 2 Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 109

Introduction

I published reasons for a decision on 12 February 2025 and made orders that the default judgment entered on 18 August 2025 be set aside.

I directed the parties file written submissions as to cost orders sought, in the event costs could not be agreed. The reasons for decision found that the Judgment was irregularly entered upon the basis that the Statement of Claim was deficient and non-compliant.[1]
[1]Roxo v Gamble & Ors [2025] QMC 3.

The plaintiff and defendants have provided submissions on costs.

The successful defendants contend for the following orders;

1. The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs fixed in the sum of $32,977.00.

2. The plaintiff file and serve the amended Statement of Claim within 28 days of this order.

The unsuccessful plaintiff contends for the following orders;

1. That the costs of the application be costs in the cause or in the alternative be reserved to the conclusion of the proceeding.

2. That the plaintiff file and serve an amended Statement of Claim within 28 days.

Amendment of Statement of Claim

Interestingly both the plaintiff and defendant’s seek orders effectively giving the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim.

Leave is not required to amend the Statement of Claim. Before the filing of request for trial date a party may as often as necessary make an amendment of which leave of the Court is not required under the rules.[2] While both submissions are silent as to the issue it would appear that what the parties seek is more in the nature of directions to advance the proceedings. The Court has a general power to make directions.[3]
[2]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 378.
[3]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 367.

As it is otherwise uncontroversial it is appropriate to make the directions order sought requiring the plaintiff to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 21 days.

The Ordinary Rule as to Costs

The defendant’s submissions[4] identify the principles as to the general rule about costs.
[4]Defendant’s Submissions [2]–[4]

Costs follow the event unless the Court otherwise orders.[5] It is a long-established principle that costs follow the event, unless there are special circumstances justifying a different order.[6] The plaintiff’s submissions accept those general propositions.[7]
[5]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681.
[6]Oshlock v Richmond…

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 Roxo v Gamble

Details

AGLC: Roxo v Gamble [2025] QMC 14
Case: [2025] QMC 14
Decision Date: 21/05/2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roxo commenced proceedings against Gamble seeking damages for breach of contract. The matter came before the court to determine the appropriate costs order. The court had to decide whether the costs should be awarded on a standard or indemnity basis. The court considered the nature of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and the relevant statutory provisions.

The legal issue before the court was whether the costs should be awarded on a standard or indemnity basis under the applicable legislation. The court examined the circumstances of the case and the conduct of both parties. The court noted that the legislation provided for the award of costs on either a standard or indemnity basis, depending on the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the appropriate costs order was on a standard basis. The court considered that the conduct of both parties was not such as to warrant an indemnity costs order. The court found that the plaintiff's conduct did not amount to unreasonable behaviour, and that the defendant's conduct did not involve any form of abuse of the court process. The court held that the costs should be awarded on a standard basis, as provided for by the relevant legislation.

The court ordered that the costs of the proceeding be paid on a standard basis by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Orders