Ryan v Worthington - [2016] QCA 128

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ryan v Worthington [2016] QCA 128

PARTIES:

ANDREW WILLIAM RYAN
(applicant)
v
STEVEN BRYAN WORTHINGTON
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10142 of 2015
QCAT No 189 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – [2014] QCATA 277

DELIVERED ON:

10 May 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Flanagan J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

There is no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the applicant was granted leave to appeal on the basis of an error of contractual construction but the appeal was dismissed – where correcting that error benefitted both parties – where, in the circumstances, both parties had mixed success – whether costs should be awarded

Ryan v Worthington[2015] QCA 201, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance by the applicant, the applicant’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

MORRISON JA: The Court delivered its decision on the application for leave to appeal in this matter, on 23 October 2015.[1] The parties were given leave to make such submissions as they may be advised as to the costs of the application and appeal. They have now done so.
[1]Ryan v Worthington [2015] QCA 201.
It is helpful to set out a brief synopsis of the proceedings leading to the application for leave to appeal to this Court. The following is taken from paragraphs [4]-[6] of the primary decision.
Mr Worthington started proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to recover $93,696.83 for monies outstanding from his final payment claim under a building contract. Dr Ryan contended that Mr Worthington was only entitled to be paid a reasonable sum for the value of the works done, which had already been paid. He also counterclaimed for $54,727.76, being liquidated and other damages.
At first instance in QCAT Mr Worthington succeeded, and was awarded $80,833.09. Dr Ryan appealed to QCAT’s Appeal Tribunal, which allowed the appeal, set aside the orders, and remitted the matter “for determination according to law”.
The Appeal Tribunal made three relevant findings.
First, the Member at first instance made an error of law by awarding damages on a basis not claimed or pleaded, thereby denying procedural fairness. The Appeal Tribunal decided that error was sufficient in itself to warrant remitting the matter for fresh determination by a Member of QCAT. Before this Court there was no challenge to that finding.
Secondly, the Member erred in the calculation of the damages. But for the decision to remit, the Appeal Tribunal would have reduced…

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 Ryan v Worthington

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Worthington [2016] QCA 128
Case: [2016] QCA 128
Decision Date: 10 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ryan v Worthington involved a dispute between the parties concerning a contractual error which led to an appeal being granted on the basis of this error in construction. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed. The central issue before the court was whether costs should be awarded in light of both parties deriving some benefit from the correction of the error, despite the overall dismissal of the appeal. The court needed to consider the principle that costs generally follow the event and the implications of partial success in the context of civil proceedings in state and territory courts.

The court examined the principle that costs usually follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party generally pays the successful party's costs. However, in cases of partial success, where both parties benefit from the resolution of the dispute, the court has discretion to order that costs be borne by the party who initiated the proceedings. In this case, although the applicant's appeal was dismissed, the correction of the contractual error benefitted both parties. The court considered these circumstances in determining whether to award costs.

After considering the nature of the appeal and the outcome, the court decided that given the mixed success of both parties, neither party should bear the costs of the proceedings. The court exercised its discretion under the principle that costs generally follow the event, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case where both parties benefitted from the resolution of the error. Consequently, the court made no order as to costs.

The court's decision highlights the importance of discretion in awarding costs in cases of partial success, particularly where both parties benefit from the resolution of an issue, even if the appeal itself is ultimately dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

There is no order as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	Ryan v Worthington [2016] QCA 128
PARTIES:	ANDREW WILLIAM RYAN (applicant) v STEVEN BRYAN WORTHINGTON (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10142 of 2015 QCAT No 189 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – [2014] QCATA 277
DELIVERED ON:	10 May 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Flanagan J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	There is no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the applicant was granted leave to appeal on the basis of an error of contractual construction but the appeal was dismissed – where correcting that error benefitted both parties – where, in the circumstances, both parties had mixed success – whether costs should be awarded Ryan v Worthington[2015] QCA 201, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance by the applicant, the applicant’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant No appearance for the respondent