Stacey v Perkins (No 2)

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stacey v Perkins & Anor (No 2) [2015] QDC 117

PARTIES:

PAUL DOUGLAS STACEY

(plaintiff)

v

KERRY ANN PERKINS

(first defendant)

and

WILLIAM STEWART PERKINS

(second defendant)

FILE NO:

D3592/14

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.     It is ordered that the plaintiff pay the first defendant’s costs of the application filed 27 April 2015.

2.     No further order as to costs of that application is made.

CATCHWORDS:

Costs

LEGISLATION CITED:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 681, r 684, r 692(2)

CASES CITED:

Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2006] WASCA 56

COUNSEL:

M Williams for the Applicant/Plaintiff

G Shaw (Solicitor) for the First Respondent/Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Carter Capner Law for the Applicant/Plaintiff

Australian Law Group for the First Respondent/Defendant

Introduction

1. On 8 May 2015 I made orders in this proceeding. As part of those orders I gave leave to all parties to file, and serve, written submissions on costs, if any, by 4pm on 15 May 2015. Only the plaintiff and the first defendant have made such written submissions.

1. In the original reasons, I indicated, with respect to costs, that I had an intention, subject to being persuaded to the contrary, to order that the plaintiff pay the first defendant’s costs of the application, insofar as it affected the amendment to the Claim and Statement of Claim and in light of my decision on disclosure: at [24].

1. With respect to the second defendant, I indicated an intention to make no order as to costs, subject, again, to being convinced to the contrary: at [25]. As the second defendant has filed no submissions on costs, it is simply a matter of examining what the plaintiff seeks in deciding what merit, if any, his submissions have about her costs.

Costs rules

1. Clearly, the two rules in question are r 681 and r 684 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”).

1. Rule 692(2) of the UCPR takes effect according to its terms, unless the Court orders otherwise. That remains applicable here because I do not intend to order otherwise.

1. Even so, what I am concerned about are the costs of the application in question which, as I have examined, was in two parts. It is the costs with respect to those parts that is the real issue here.

Application for amendment

1. It is acknowledged that, in special cases, the principles referred to in Stanley v Layne Christensen Co[1] are applicable. But, as observed there by Wheeler JA, the significant factor there was whether a party “acting reasonably” would have considered consenting to appropriate orders: at [52].

   [1] [2006] WASCA 56.

1. It may well be that if the amendment were, in fact, to have added “a substantial, different, but apparently arguable cause of action” (see Stanley at [55]), a different approach from that which I will adopt here could have been arguable. But,…