Shoujaa Pty Ltd v Haboob Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Shoujaa Trust

Shoujaa Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Haboob Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Shoujaa Trust in the Queensland District Court. The plaintiffs sought to recover costs incurred by the defendants in reviewing the plaintiffs’ compliance with a case management order. The dispute centred around the plaintiffs’ alleged non-compliance with a directions order concerning the delivery of witness statements. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had not adhered to the specified deadline for providing these statements, necessitating a review of the matter to address the non-compliance. The core legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs should be held responsible for the defendants’ costs incurred during the review and whether these costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis.

The court considered the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the trial directions order, which mandated the delivery of witness statements by a specific date. The plaintiffs did not dispute their non-compliance but argued that the defendants should not be entitled to costs as the review process was unnecessary. The court examined the conduct of both parties and the implications of the non-compliance on the defendants. It was noted that the plaintiffs' non-compliance was not trivial, and the defendants' request for a review was reasonable under the circumstances. The court held that the plaintiffs' non-compliance justified the defendants' request for a review, and the plaintiffs should bear the costs of this review. The court further determined that these costs should be assessed on the standard basis rather than the indemnity basis.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were liable for the costs incurred by the defendants during the review of the non-compliance. These costs were to be assessed on the standard basis, reflecting the court's view that the defendants' costs were reasonably incurred as a result of the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the directions order. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to case management orders and the consequences of non-compliance.