Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2025] QDC 156

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] QDC 156

PARTIES:

JOHN JOSEPH SCHLECHT & LOUELLA JANE SCHLECHT AS TRUSTEES OF THE SCHLECHT SUPER FUND
(Plaintiff)

v

EPM OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACN 638 154 613 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE EPM OPERATIONS

(First Defendant)

MATTHEW CHADWICK

(Second Defendant)

WENDY JANE CHADWICK

(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3058/2022

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6-7, 10-14, 24-25 February 2025

JUDGE:

Barlow KC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants in the sum of $44,072.82, including interest of $8,724.66.

2.   Further judgment for the plaintiffs against the first defendant in the sum of $85,900.18, including interest of $17,252.42.

3.   The plaintiffs’ claim against the third defendant be dismissed.

4.   The first and second defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the application filed on 7 August 2025.

5.   The first and second defendants otherwise pay 50% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, including any reserved costs.

6.   The first defendant otherwise pay a further 20% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, including any reserved costs.

7.   There be no order as to the third defendant’s costs of the proceeding.

8.   The sum of $8,736.00 be paid to the plaintiffs out of the funds held in trust by their solicitors, Spire Law, in part payment of the judgment against the first defendant and the balance of those funds and of the funds held in trust by the defendants’ solicitors, JHK Legal, be paid to the first defendant or at its direction.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – COSTS OF PROCEEDING IN WRONG COURT – BY REFERENCE TO AMOUNT OR VALUE CLAIMED OR RECOVERED – in a claim brought in the District Court, the plaintiff’s damages awarded fell within the Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction – whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any greater costs than they would have recovered had the action been brought in the Magistrates Court

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS – OFFER OF COMPROMISE OR OFFER TO SETTLE OR CONSENT TO JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES – GENERALLY – the defendants made three offers to settle the proceeding – whether acceptance of the offers would been more beneficial to the plaintiffs than the ultimate judgments – whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants’ costs since the date of any of the offers

LEGISLATION:

Civil Proceedings Act 2011, s 58
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 150(1)(h), (r), r 159(3), r 681, r 697

CASES:

Batchelor v Burke (1981) 148 CLR 448, applied
Bulsey v State of Queensland [2016] QCA 158, applied
Hussey v Page [1973] Qd R 509, considered
Interchase Corporation Ltd v Grosvenor Hill (Queensland) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] 1 Qd R 26, applied
O’Doherty v McMahon [1971] VR 625, considered
Pinehurst Nominees Pty Ltd v Coeur de Lion…

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 Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] QDC 156
Case: [2025] QDC 156
Decision Date: 28 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Schlecht, bringing a claim against the defendants, EPM Operations Pty Ltd and others, in the District Court of a state. The nature of the dispute pertained to the recovery of damages that fell within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, leading to a question about the appropriate costs incurred by the plaintiff in bringing the case to the District Court. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to greater costs than would have been awarded had the action been brought in the Magistrates Court. Additionally, the court examined whether the plaintiff should be liable for the defendants' costs from the date they made offers to settle the proceeding.

In addressing these issues, the court considered the amount or value of the claim relative to the jurisdiction of the court in which the proceeding was brought. It evaluated the offers made by the defendants to settle the proceeding, determining whether acceptance of these offers would have been more advantageous to the plaintiff than the ultimate judgments. The court assessed whether the plaintiff should bear the defendants' costs from the dates of the offers to settle. In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff's damages did indeed fall within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. However, it concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to greater costs than they would have recovered had the action been brought in the Magistrates Court. The court also determined that the plaintiff should not be liable for the defendants' costs from the date of any of the offers.

The court's decision resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants in the specified sum, including interest. The plaintiffs' claim against the third defendant was dismissed. The court ordered the first and second defendants to pay 50% of the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding, with the first defendant additionally paying 20% of those costs. No order was made regarding the third defendant's costs. Additionally, a specified sum was to be paid to the plaintiffs from funds held in trust by their solicitors, with the remaining funds to be paid to the first defendant or at its direction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants in the sum of $44,072.82, including interest of $8,724.66.

2. Further judgment for the plaintiffs against the first defendant in the sum of $85,900.18, including interest of $17,252.42.

3. The plaintiffs’ claim against the third defendant be dismissed.

4. The first and second defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the application filed on 7 August 2025.

5. The first and second defendants otherwise pay 50% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, including any reserved costs.

6. The first defendant otherwise pay a further 20% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, including any reserved costs.

7. There be no order as to the third defendant’s costs of the proceeding.

8. The sum of $8,736.00 be paid to the plaintiffs out of the funds held in trust by their solicitors, Spire Law, in part payment of the judgment against the first defendant and the balance of those funds and of the funds held in trust by the defendants’ solicitors, JHK Legal, be paid to the first defendant or at its direction.

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:	Schlecht v EPM Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] QDC 156
PARTIES:	JOHN JOSEPH SCHLECHT & LOUELLA JANE SCHLECHT AS TRUSTEES OF THE SCHLECHT SUPER FUND (Plaintiff)
v
EPM OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACN 638 154 613 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE EPM OPERATIONS (First Defendant)
MATTHEW CHADWICK (Second Defendant)
WENDY JANE CHADWICK (Third Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 3058/2022
DIVISION:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	28 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6-7, 10-14, 24-25 February 2025
JUDGE:	Barlow KC, DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants in the sum of $44,072.82, including interest of $8,724.66. 2. Further judgment for the plaintiffs against the first defendant in the sum of $85,900.18, including interest of $17,252.42. 3. The plaintiffs’ claim against the third defendant be dismissed. 4. The first and second defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the application filed on 7 August 2025. 5. The first and second defendants otherwise pay 50% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, including any reserved costs. 6. The first defendant otherwise pay a further 20% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, including any reserved costs. 7. There be no order as to the third defendant’s costs of the proceeding. 8. The sum of $8,736.00 be paid to the plaintiffs out of the funds held in trust by their solicitors, Spire Law, in part payment of the judgment against the first defendant and the balance of those funds and of the funds held in trust by the defendants’ solicitors, JHK Legal, be paid to the first defendant or at its direction.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – COSTS OF PROCEEDING IN WRONG COURT – BY REFERENCE TO AMOUNT OR VALUE CLAIMED OR RECOVERED – in a claim brought in the District Court, the plaintiff’s damages awarded fell within the Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction – whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any greater costs than they would have recovered had the action been brought in the Magistrates Court PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS – OFFER OF COMPROMISE OR OFFER TO SETTLE OR CONSENT TO JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES – GENERALLY – the defendants made three offers to settle the proceeding – whether acceptance of the offers would been more beneficial to the plaintiffs than the ultimate judgments – whether the plaintiffs should pay the defendants’ costs since the date of any of the offers
LEGISLATION:	Civil Proceedings Act 2011, s 58 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 150(1)(h), (r), r 159(3), r 681, r 697
CASES:	Batchelor v Burke (1981) 148 CLR 448, applied Bulsey v State of Queensland [2016] QCA 158, applied Hussey v Page [1973] Qd R 509, considered Interchase Corporation Ltd v Grosvenor Hill (Queensland) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] 1 Qd R 26, applied O’Doherty v McMahon [1971] VR 625, considered Pinehurst Nominees Pty Ltd v Coeur de Lion…