SGB v STG; WTS v STG (No 2) - [2024] QDC 137

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SGB v STG; WTS v STG (No 2) [2024] QDC 137

PARTIES:

In D No 8 of 2023:

SGB

(Appellant)

V

STG

(Respondent)

In D No 211 of 2024:

WTS

(Appellant)

V

STG

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D8 of 2023
D211 of 2024

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 164 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

6 September 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

On the papers; appellants’ written submissions filed on 6 August 2024 and respondent’s written submissions filed on 27 August 2024

JUDGE:

Holliday KC DCJ

ORDER:

IN D NO 8 OF 2023

1. THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPELLANT’S COSTS OF THE APPEAL, NOT INCLUDING THE APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE, ON THE STANDARD BASIS AS AGREED OR TO BE ASSESSED.

2. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal pursuant to section 15 (2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

IN D NO 211 OF 2024

1. THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPELLANT’S COSTS OF THE APPEAL, NOT INCLUDING THE APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE, ON THE STANDARD BASIS AS AGREED OR TO BE ASSESSED.

2. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal under section 15 (2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act1973 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – APPEAL – PROCEDURE – COSTS – where appeals allowed – where the successful appellants seek costs – whether a costs order should be made – whether an indemnity certificate should be granted to the respondent

LEGISLATION:

Appeals Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) ss 15, 33

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ss 142, 157

Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (Qld) s 33

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681

CASES:

AVI v SLA (No 2) [2019] QDC 207

BAK v Gallagher (No 2) [2018] QDC 132

Conversation Council of Western Australia (Inc) v The Hon Stephen Dawson MLC [2018] WASC 34

HZA v ZHA [2018] QDC 125

John Urquhart t/as Hart Renovations v Partington & Anor [2016] QCA 199

Kilvington v Grigg & Ors (No 2) [2011] QDC 37

LAP v HBY [2021] QCA 123

Oshlack v Richmond City Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

West & Ors v Blackgrove & Anor [2012] QCA 321

COUNSEL:

D Steiner for the Appellants

J Grehan for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Browns Lawyers for the Appellants
Oden Legal for the Respondent

Introduction

This is the costs decision consequent on the decision given in SGB v STG; WTS v STG [2024] QDC 128.
By my order, the appeals of SGB and WTS were heard together. They filed joint submissions and were represented by the same counsel and instructing solicitors. In compliance with my orders of 30 July 2024, written submissions on costs were filed by the appellants (the one set of submissions) on 6 August 2024 and by the respondent on 27 August 2024.
The appellants seek an order that the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SGB v STG; WTS v STG (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] QDC 137
Decision Date: 6 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SGB and WTS, the appellants, appealed against decisions made by the District Court of Queensland, which were in turn appeals from decisions of the Magistrates Court of Queensland. The initial dispute involved allegations of domestic violence, and the appeals centred on procedural and costs issues. The appellants sought to overturn the lower court decisions and, if successful in their appeals, sought costs orders against the respondent, STG. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the appeals were meritorious and, if so, whether to grant a costs order against the respondent and an indemnity certificate for the respondent.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appeals were successful and, if so, the appropriateness of ordering the respondent to pay the appellants' costs. Another issue was whether the respondent should be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal. The court considered the outcomes of the appeals and the relevant statutory provisions regarding costs and indemnity certificates.

The Court of Appeal found the appeals to be meritorious and allowed them. Regarding the costs, the court held that the appellants were entitled to costs on the standard basis, excluding the costs associated with the application to adduce fresh evidence. The court also determined that an indemnity certificate should be granted to the respondent under section 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld). This decision ensured that the respondent would not be liable for the appellants' costs unless the indemnity certificate was not obtained within the prescribed period.

The court made orders that the respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal, excluding the costs of the application to adduce fresh evidence, on the standard basis as agreed or to be assessed. The court also granted the respondent an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal. These orders were made in two separate decisions, one in 2023 and another in 2024, both of which followed the same reasoning and resulted in similar outcomes.

Orders

Orders of the court

IN D NO 8 OF 2023

1. THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPELLANT’S COSTS OF THE APPEAL, NOT INCLUDING THE APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE, ON THE STANDARD BASIS AS AGREED OR TO BE ASSESSED.

2. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal pursuant to section 15 (2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

IN D NO 211 OF 2024

1. THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPELLANT’S COSTS OF THE APPEAL, NOT INCLUDING THE APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE, ON THE STANDARD BASIS AS AGREED OR TO BE ASSESSED.

2. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal under section 15 (2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

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:	SGB v STG; WTS v STG (No 2) [2024] QDC 137
PARTIES:	In D No 8 of 2023: SGB (Appellant) V STG (Respondent) In D No 211 of 2024: WTS (Appellant) V STG (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D8 of 2023 D211 of 2024
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal pursuant to s 164 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	6 September 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	On the papers; appellants’ written submissions filed on 6 August 2024 and respondent’s written submissions filed on 27 August 2024
JUDGE:	Holliday KC DCJ
ORDER:	IN D NO 8 OF 2023 1. THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPELLANT’S COSTS OF THE APPEAL, NOT INCLUDING THE APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE, ON THE STANDARD BASIS AS AGREED OR TO BE ASSESSED. *2. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal pursuant to section 15 (2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973* (Qld). IN D NO 211 OF 2024 1. THE RESPONDENT PAY THE APPELLANT’S COSTS OF THE APPEAL, NOT INCLUDING THE APPELLANT’S APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE, ON THE STANDARD BASIS AS AGREED OR TO BE ASSESSED. 2. The respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal under section 15 (2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act1973 (Qld).**
CATCHWORDS:	DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – APPEAL – PROCEDURE – COSTS – where appeals allowed – where the successful appellants seek costs – whether a costs order should be made – whether an indemnity certificate should be granted to the respondent
LEGISLATION:	Appeals Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) ss 15, 33 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ss 142, 157 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (Qld) s 33 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 681
CASES:	AVI v SLA (No 2) [2019] QDC 207 BAK v Gallagher (No 2) [2018] QDC 132 Conversation Council of Western Australia (Inc) v The Hon Stephen Dawson MLC [2018] WASC 34 HZA v ZHA [2018] QDC 125 John Urquhart t/as Hart Renovations v Partington & Anor [2016] QCA 199 Kilvington v Grigg & Ors (No 2) [2011] QDC 37 LAP v HBY [2021] QCA 123 Oshlack v Richmond City Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 West & Ors v Blackgrove & Anor [2012] QCA 321
COUNSEL:	D Steiner for the Appellants J Grehan for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Browns Lawyers for the Appellants Oden Legal for the Respondent