S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd v McLean Cooke Pty Ltd (No 2)
Case
•
[2012] QCAT 396
•30 August 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd v McLean Cooke Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] QCAT 396
[2012] QCAT 396
30 August 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd v McLean Cooke Pty Ltd (No 2), the parties were involved in a dispute that was ultimately resolved in the Queensland District Court. The primary issue was the allocation of costs between the parties following the conclusion of the proceedings.
The court was required to determine the appropriate basis for assessing and allocating the costs incurred during the proceedings. The matter specifically addressed whether the costs should be assessed on the standard basis, the parties’ own costs basis, or some other basis. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate scale to be used for the assessment of costs, given that the District Court scale of costs was referenced in the orders.
The court concluded that S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd should bear the costs of the proceedings against McLean Cooke Pty Ltd, to be assessed on a standard basis according to the District Court scale of costs. The court found that the standard basis was appropriate given the nature of the dispute and the outcome of the proceedings. It also directed that McLean Cooke Pty Ltd was to provide an itemisation of the costs to S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd. If the parties could not agree on the amount of costs within 14 days of the itemisation, the matter would be referred to Hickey and Garrett, Legal Costs Assessors, for assessment. S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the assessed or agreed costs within 14 days of the assessment or agreement.
The final orders required S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd to pay McLean Cooke Pty Ltd’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs, assessed on the District Court scale of costs. McLean Cooke Pty Ltd was to deliver an itemisation of the costs, and if the parties could not agree on the amount within 14 days, the costs would be assessed by the specified legal costs assessors. S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd was then to pay the assessed or agreed costs within 14 days of such assessment or agreement.
The court was required to determine the appropriate basis for assessing and allocating the costs incurred during the proceedings. The matter specifically addressed whether the costs should be assessed on the standard basis, the parties’ own costs basis, or some other basis. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate scale to be used for the assessment of costs, given that the District Court scale of costs was referenced in the orders.
The court concluded that S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd should bear the costs of the proceedings against McLean Cooke Pty Ltd, to be assessed on a standard basis according to the District Court scale of costs. The court found that the standard basis was appropriate given the nature of the dispute and the outcome of the proceedings. It also directed that McLean Cooke Pty Ltd was to provide an itemisation of the costs to S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd. If the parties could not agree on the amount of costs within 14 days of the itemisation, the matter would be referred to Hickey and Garrett, Legal Costs Assessors, for assessment. S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the assessed or agreed costs within 14 days of the assessment or agreement.
The final orders required S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd to pay McLean Cooke Pty Ltd’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs, assessed on the District Court scale of costs. McLean Cooke Pty Ltd was to deliver an itemisation of the costs, and if the parties could not agree on the amount within 14 days, the costs would be assessed by the specified legal costs assessors. S.H.I.F.T. Whitsunday Pty Ltd was then to pay the assessed or agreed costs within 14 days of such assessment or agreement.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Wharton v Duffy Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2015] QCAT 234
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Wharton v Duffy Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (No. 2)
[2015] QCAT 234
Armstrong v Kawana Island Retirement Village
[2014] QCAT 51
Wharton v Duffy Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (No. 2)
[2015] QCAT 234
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Lyons v Dreamstarter Pty Ltd
[2010] QCAT 447
Velvet Glove Holdings Pty Ltd v Mount Isa Mines Ltd
[2011] QCA 312