Simpson v Grundy (No 2)

Case [2011] QSC 329

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Simpson v Grundy & Anor (No 2) [2011] QSC 329

PARTIES:

DEBBIE-JO SIMPSON
(plaintiff)
v
LINDSAY GRUNDY
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

12752 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Costs Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

On the Papers

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on a standard basis to be assessed or agreed.

COUNSEL:

Mr G Mullins for the plaintiff
Mr S C Williams QC with Mr E J Williams for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy for the defendant

  1. DALTON J:  I delivered judgment in this matter on 6 October 2011.  I found for the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff had established no breach of duty in a negligence case.  The matter wsas one where the factual circumstances contended for by the plaintiff’s side conflicted with those contended for by the defendant’s side.  In the end I rejected most of the evidence called by the defendant’s side on credit grounds.  I found that the facts were in accordance with the evidence given by the plaintiff’s parents.  However on the facts as I found them, no breach of duty was established.  I expressed considerable reservations as to the evidence of both the plaintiff and her brother, also on credit grounds.  I invited submissions as to costs in these circumstances.

  1. Under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 costs are in the discretion of the Court, “but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise.” I have regard to the reasoning of the High Court in Oshlack v Richmond River Council[1] as to the purpose of, “the usual order as to costs.”  I also have regard to cases such as Kitching & Anor v Queensland Commissioner of Police[2] as to the difficulties attending making costs orders as to severable issues.

    [1](1998) 193 CLR 72.

  1. In this case I made credit findings against witnesses on both sides of the record.  It seems to me that even had the defendant’s side contended for a factual version of events in line with that which I have found to be correct, the plaintiff would nonetheless have continued with her action and the defendant would have incurred the costs of defending it.  There is nothing from which I could conclude that there would have been significantly less trial time, or significantly less interlocutory cost in the proceeding.  I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on a standard basis to be assessed or agreed.


Details
AGLC
Simpson v Grundy (No 2) [2011] QSC 329
Case
[2011] QSC 329
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simpson v Grundy (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant over certain property transactions. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Simpson, sought a declaration that the defendant, Grundy, was a trustee of certain property held in Grundy’s name. The plaintiff also sought an order for the defendant to transfer the property to him. The defendant denied that he held the property on trust for the plaintiff and counterclaimed for a declaration that Simpson had no beneficial interest in the property, and for an order for Simpson to compensate the defendant for improvements made to the property.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant held the property on trust for the plaintiff and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for the transfer of the property. The court also needed to consider the defendant's counterclaim and determine whether the plaintiff had any beneficial interest in the property. The court had to examine the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the case to resolve these issues.

The court found that the defendant did not hold the property on trust for the plaintiff. It concluded that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was a trustee of the property. The court also found that the plaintiff had no beneficial interest in the property and ordered him to compensate the defendant for the improvements made to the property. The court held that the defendant was entitled to his costs of the proceeding on a standard basis.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on a standard basis to be assessed or agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on a standard basis to be assessed or agreed.

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.