So v Comptroller General of Customs (No 2)

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

So & Others v Comptroller General of Customs (No 2)  [2016] QDC 3

PARTIES:

CHI HO SO

&

JASPREET SINGH JOHAL

&

LUN SHING YIP

(appellants)

v

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF CUSTOMS

(respondent) 

FILE NO/S:

BD 1655/15

BD 1656/15

BD 1657/15

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers. Written submissions of the appellants undated. Written submissions of the respondent dated 25 January 2016. 

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1.   I order the respondent to pay to the Registrar of the District Court Brisbane the appellants’ costs fixed in the sum of $3,000 for payment over to the solicitors for the appellants.

2.   I order that this sum be paid within 30 days.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – COSTS - Quantum of costs to be awarded

 Justices Act 1886 (Q) ss 226, 232, 232A

Justices Regulation 2014 (Q) schedule 2

Murray v Radford [2003] QCA 91

So & Others v Comptroller General of Customs [2015] QDC 334

COUNSEL:

Mr A. Braithwaite for the appellants.

Solicitors for the respondents.

SOLICITORS:

Russo Lawyers for the appellants.

Australian Government Solicitor for the respondent.

Introduction

1. This is my decision as to the issue of costs consequent upon the decision given in So & others v Comptroller General of Customs.[1] 

   [1][2015] QDC 334.

Appellants’ submissions

1. The appellants submit that they are entitled to their costs of the appeal.  It is submitted there was no disentitling conduct by the appellants and they had arguable points.  It is submitted that the costs should follow the event.  The appellants submit that costs in the sum of $1,500.00 for each appellant for day one and $875.00 for each appellant for a second day (the argument as to costs) should be awarded.  This totals $7,125.00.

Respondent’s submissions

1. The respondent on the other hand submits that it would not be appropriate to award full costs here as there was no basis to assert that each of the three appellants had somewhat different positions; the triplication of the appeal has not added significantly to the appellants’ actual costs; each appeal dealt with a singular question of law; the same legal representatives acted for the three appellants and the appellants were not wholly successful in their appeals. 

1. It is submitted the Court could reasonably allow a further uplift fee to reflect the issues involved in conducting three similar appeals in the sum of 50% over the scale of rate for one matter.

The Act

1. Section 226 of the Justices Act 1886 (Q) provides:

“Costs

The Judge may make such order as to costs to be paid by either party as the Judge may think just.”

1. Davies JA in Murray v Radford[2] considered this section reposes a very wide discretion in the court concerning costs.

   [2][2003] QCA 91.

1. Section 232A of the Justices Act 1886 (Q) provides:

“Costs for division

(1) In deciding the costs that are just for…