Schebella v Schebella (No 2)

Case [2025] QDC 79

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schebella v Schebella & Anor (No 2) [2025] QDC 79

PARTIES:

KEVIN CHARLES SCHEBELLA

(Plaintiff)

v

MARK ANDREW SCHEBELLA
(First Defendant)

and

KAREN JANE SCHEBELLA
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

121/2019

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Civil Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

Heard on written materials provided up to 4 April 2025

JUDGE:

Long SC DCJ

ORDER:

1.  The First and Second Defendants are to pay the plaintiff the sum of $303,304.95 (including $78,304.95 for interest).

2.  The First and Second Defendants are to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, fixed in the amount of $113,610.63 / or alternatively, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

JUDGMENT ORDERS – PRONOUNCEMENT – PUBLICATION OF REASONS – whether judgment has been pronounced – where UCPR 663(2) allows the publishment of reasons before any final order is made – whether it is appropriate to reopen the proceeding, so as to correct any error which might be identified in the reasons which have been published.

INTEREST - whether and in what amount interest pursuant to s58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 should be awarded.

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – COSTS – where the general rule is that costs follow the event – where the plaintiff had a lack of success in alternative claims and whether it is subsequently appropriate to reduce costs due to the unsuccessful separate causes of action – whether those costs ought to be fixed by the Court or be subject to assessment under the UCPR 687.

LEGISLATION:

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 ss 4, 58(3), 59 and Schedule 1
Corporations Act 2001, s 197
Trusts Act 1973, s 113
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 4, 388, 658(1), 659, 660, 661, 663(2), 667 and 668

CASES:

AGL Sales (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dawson Sales Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] QSC 75
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Atlantic 3-Fnancial (Aust) Pty Ltd (No.3) [2008] 2 Qd R 298
Farrar v Julian-Armitage [2016] QCA 141, [5] (citations omitted).
Hartley v Hartley (2022) 10 QR 791
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, 97

Rogers v Roche [2018] 1 Qd R 515

Schebella v Schebella & Anor [2025] QDC 16

Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256, 265
Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39
Vision Eye Institute Ltd v Kitchen (No 3) [2015] QSC 164

COUNSEL:

M White for the Plaintiff
The first and second defendants appeared on their own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Queensland Legal for the Plaintiff
The first and second defendants appeared on their own behalf

Introduction

  1. On 28 February 2025, the Court pronounced that:

    “I will publish reasons for my conclusion that there will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $225,000, upon the cause of action in debt due and owing, but not otherwise,…

Continue reading Schebella v Schebella (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Schebella v Schebella (No 2) [2025] QDC 79
Case
[2025] QDC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Schebella v Schebella (No 2) involved a dispute over financial matters between the parties. The court was required to determine whether the publication of the reasons for the judgment had been made and whether it was appropriate to reopen the proceeding to correct any errors that might be identified in the published reasons. The case also involved determining the financial orders between the parties, including the amount of money to be paid and the costs of the proceeding.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judgment had been pronounced and whether it was appropriate to reopen the proceeding to correct any errors in the published reasons. The court considered the submissions made in writing by the parties and the potential for further incurring substantial costs without the opportunity to respond meaningfully. The court also needed to decide on the financial orders between the parties, including the amount to be paid and the costs of the proceeding.

The court considered that the parties should be given an opportunity to respond to the proposed modifications to avoid incurring further substantial costs. The court noted that the submissions had occurred in writing without any opportunity to respond to the proposed modification put in writing and without meaningful engagement by the defendants in responding to the materials relied upon by the plaintiff. The court concluded that it was appropriate to give the parties an opportunity to address the alternatives in the proposed order. The court also determined the financial orders between the parties, including the amount to be paid and the costs of the proceeding.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the First and Second Defendants were to pay the plaintiff the sum of $303,304.95, including $78,304.95 for interest. The court also ordered that the First and Second Defendants were to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, fixed in the amount of $113,610.63 or alternatively, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis. The court also noted that the parties should be given an opportunity to address the alternatives in the proposed order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The First and Second Defendants are to pay the plaintiff the sum of $303,304.95 (including $78,304.95 for interest).

2. The First and Second Defendants are to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, fixed in the amount of $113,610.63 / or alternatively, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

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

Secondly and in the context of the submissions in respect of this issue having occurred in writing and without any opportunity to respond to this proposed modification of the proposal put in writing and any meaningful engagement of the defendants in responding to the materials relied upon by the plaintiff, the parties should be given some opportunity to respond as to whether there is any further opposition to the avoidance of further incurrence of substantial costs. The only alternative being an order which allows for agreement as to the amount to be paid or assessment on the standard basis.Conclusion In these circumstances and subject to an opportunity for the parties to address the alternatives in the second proposed order, the appropriate orders are that:1. The First and Second Defendants are to pay the plaintiff the sum of $303,304.95 (including $78,304.95 for interest).2. The First and Second Defendants are to pay 90% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, fixed in the amount of $113,610.63 / or alternatively, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.