Russells (a firm) v McCosker

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Russells (a firm) v McCosker [2018] QDC 80

PARTIES:

RUSSELLS (a firm)

(Applicant/Respondent)

v

DEBRA JANET MCCOSKER

(Respondent/Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

498/2017

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 April 2018

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The plaintiff’s application is dismissed.

2. If the plaintiff has not paid the sum of $31,347.25 to the defendant by 5.00 pm on 23 May 2018, then pursuant to r 84(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) the plaintiff provide to the defendant, by 5.00 pm on 24 May 2018, written notice of the following details of the members of the plaintiff’s partnership, as at the time the plaintiff’s claim was filed, and as at 1 March 2018:

(a)   The names and places of residence of each natural person;

(b)   The names and registered office of each entity.

3.   The defendant’s application seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is not entitled to set-off its liability for costs arising pursuant to the order of Judge Koppenol DCJ made on 21 August 2017 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – ASSESSMENT – where it was ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application for summary judgment on an indemnity basis – where defendant provided a purported costs statement for assessment of costs – where plaintiff provided a purported notice of objection to the costs statement – where costs assessor was appointed by way of default assessment – where plaintiff’s purported notice of objection not provided to costs assessor – where default assessment occurred and certificate issued – where plaintiff seeks to set aside costs order of the deputy registrar and decision of the costs assessor and have the defendant’s costs reassessed COSTS – ASSESSMENT – requirements for valid cost statements – requirements for valid notices of objection – whether the defendant’s costs statement was valid – whether the plaintiff’s notice of objection was valid

COSTS – SET-OFF – where the plaintiff seeks entitlement to set-off costs – where the defendant seeks declaration that no set-off be permitted – whether set-off of costs is appropriate

PARTNERSHIP – partnership proceeding – where the defendant seeks orders for production of certain information about the partnership from the plaintiff – whether such orders should be made

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 84(3), r 703, r 705, r 706, r 708, 709

Tablelands Regional Council v Pensini & Anor (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Henry J, 19 December 2012)
Elphick v Elliott [2003] 1 Qd R 362
Team Dynamik Racing Pty Ltd v Longhurst Racing Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 36

COUNSEL:

J W Peden QC for the applicant/respondent

M E B Williams for the respondent/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Synkronos Legal for the applicant/respondent

ClarkeKann Lawyers for the respondent/applicant 

1. This matter involves cross-applications so for ease of reference, I will refer to “Russells” as the plaintiff and “Ms McCosker” as the defendant throughout this decision.

Background

1. On 10 February 2017,…