Shamrock Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Honan Insurance Group Pty Ltd
[2025] QSC 24
•14 February 2025
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Shamrock Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Honan Insurance Group Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 24
PARTIES:
SHAMROCK CIVIL ENGINEERING PTY LTD
ABN 68 066 655 856(plaintiff)
v
HONAN INSURANCE GROUP PTY LTD
ABN 67 005 372 396(first defendant)
CLEANAWAY SOLID WASTE PTY LTD
ACN 120 175 635
(second defendant)
CLEANAWAY PTY LTD
ACN 000 164 938
(third defendant)
QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
ACN 003 191 035
(fourth defendant)
CHASE UNDERWRITING PTY LTD
ACN 156 554 808
(first third party)
QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
ACN 003 191 035(second third party)
FILE NO:
BS6807/23
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
14 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
10 December 2024
JUDGE:
Freeburn J
ORDERS:
The costs of the application for summary judgment are reserved.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – INCONCLUSIVE PROCEEDINGS – OTHER CASES – where the plaintiff filed an application for a summary judgment against the second and third defendants’ crossclaim – where the application was within a larger piece of litigation – where the application was unsuccessful – where the applicant acted reasonably – whether the costs discretion should be exercised at this point of the litigation
COUNSEL:
DB O’Sullivan KC, with PD Lane, for the plaintiff
DP O’Brien KC, with S McLeod, for the second and third defendants
SOLICITORS:
McCullough Robertson for the plaintiff
Gadens for the second and third defendants
On 13 December 2024, I dismissed an application by the plaintiff (Shamrock) for summary judgment pursuant to rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Shamrock contended that the second and third defendants (Cleanaway) had no real prospect of succeeding on its indemnity claim and that the crossclaim by Cleanaway should be dismissed.
That was an application within a larger, more complex piece of litigation. The objective of the application was to decide, in advance of trial, an issue of contract interpretation.
The costs of a proceeding, including an application in a proceeding, are in the discretion of the court but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise.[1]
[1]Rule 681(1) of the UCPR.
Where an application for summary judgement is unsuccessful, then at least one factor to consider in exercising the costs discretion is whether the applicant ought reasonably to have been aware that the respondent had an entitlement to have the application dismissed.[2]
[2]See UCPR 299.
The focus, or course, is on whether the applicant acted reasonably.
Here, the application turned on the issue of statutory interpretation. Ultimately, I disagreed with both the applicant’s approach to contract interpretation and the application of those principles to this particular commercial contract.
The views I have expressed may prove to coincide with the views of the trial judge (or the Court of Appeal). Or it may be that the trial judge will come to a different view. That is one of the reasons for hesitancy to finally dispose of costs on an application for summary judgment. The question on a summary judgment is whether there is no real prospect of the claim proceeding.
There is, in my view, nothing unreasonable in the approach of Shamrock. These costs are best dealt with once the proceeding has been tried.
The appropriate order is that costs of the application be reserved so that the trial judge can properly allocate the costs of the proceeding, including this application.
0
0
0