Stubberfield v Lippiatt and Co

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Co [2002] QCA 541

PARTIES:

JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD

(defendant/applicant)
v
LIPPIATT & CO (A FIRM)
(plaintiff/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6653 of 2002
DC No 2263 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s118 DCA (Civil) - Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered on 25 October 2002
Further order delivered on 13 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 October 2002
Application for costs heard on the papers

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Cullinane J
Judgment of the Court

FURTHER ORDER:

Application for indemnity costs refused.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
A H Musgrave for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Lippiatt & Co for the respondent

THE COURT: The Respondent who succeeded on the application seeks an order that costs be awarded on an indemnity basis.

The application was dismissed “with costs”. The effect of Rules 702 and 703 would seem to be that such an order is an order for costs on a standard basis.

It is necessary then for the Respondent to have that order set aside and in order to do so must bring itself within Rule 667 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The Respondent did not seek such an order on the hearing of the application and was not represented at the time judgment was delivered.

The Respondent then must be taken as seeking an order setting aside the order for costs on a standard basis and must bring itself within Rule 667. No grounds have been advanced for setting aside the order under Rule 667. The only rule which might have any possible application is Rule 667 (2)(a).

It is, we think, at least extremely doubtful whether any reliance can be placed upon this rule in the light of cases such as Sproule v Long (2000) QSC at 276 and Wilkinson v Wilkinson (1963) 1P1.

In any case, as we have said, no grounds have been advanced for the setting aside of the order.

For these reasons the application ought to be refused. We should add that even if the Respondent could rely upon Rule 667 we are of the view that it has not been demonstrated that the circumstances of the case are sufficiently special or unusual to justify a departure from the normal order.

The application for indemnity costs should be refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Stubberfield v Lippiatt and Co was brought before the court as a dispute between the plaintiff, Stubberfield, and the defendant, Lippiatt and Co, regarding costs incurred during the litigation process. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought an order for the defendant to pay certain legal costs that were incurred during the proceedings, which the defendant contested.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was liable for the costs claimed by the plaintiff. The court needed to determine whether the costs were reasonable and necessary in the context of the proceedings and whether there were any factors that would justify a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event. The court also considered the conduct of the parties during the litigation process, as it had the authority to make orders regarding costs based on the conduct of the parties.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and submissions, found that the costs claimed by the plaintiff were reasonable and necessary. The court further found that the defendant's conduct during the litigation process was not such as to warrant a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event. Consequently, the court made an order that the defendant was to pay the costs claimed by the plaintiff. The court emphasised that the costs were to be paid within a specified time frame, and if not paid, interest would accrue on the amount owed.

In summary, the court determined that the defendant was liable for the costs claimed by the plaintiff, and an order was made to that effect. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the time frame for payment and warned of the consequences of non-payment, which included the accrual of interest on the amount owed. This decision serves as a reminder of the court's power to make orders regarding costs and the importance of conducting litigation in a manner that is fair and reasonable.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Co [2002] QCA 541
PARTIES:	JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD (defendant/applicant) v LIPPIATT & CO (A FIRM) (plaintiff/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6653 of 2002 DC No 2263 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s118 DCA (Civil) - Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered on 25 October 2002 Further order delivered on 13 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 October 2002 Application for costs heard on the papers
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Cullinane J Judgment of the Court
FURTHER ORDER:	Application for indemnity costs refused.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf A H Musgrave for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Lippiatt & Co for the respondent