Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Co - [2003] QDC 34

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stubberfield v. Lippiatt & Co [2003] QDC 034

PARTIES:

JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD (Applicant)

v.

LIPPIATT & CO (a firm) (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D2263 of 2002

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19, 21 March 2003

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

Costs – Assessment - Review by court of Registrar’s reconsideration of costs assessment – particular items considered - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – r.371, r.375, r.377, r.378, r.690(1), r.690(2)(b), r.690(5), r.703, r.717, r.742

Adamson v. Williams (2001) QCA 38
Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation & Anor v. The Commonwealth & Ors (1953) 94 CLR 621
R v. Brewer (1942) 66 CLR 535, 548
G J Coles & Co Ltd v. Retail Trade Industrial Tribunal (1986) 7 NSWLR 503, 525
W & A Gilbey Ltd v. Continental Liquors Pty Ltd (1964) NSWR 527, 533, 534-5
McCoombes v. Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd [2001] QDC 142
Re: Central Developments Pty Ltd (1998) 2 Qd.R. 476

COUNSEL:

Mr. Stubberfield appeared in person
Mr. Lippiatt for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mr. Stubberfield appeared in person
Lippiatt & Co for the respondent

[1] On 7 June 2002 John Richard Stubberfield (Mr. Stubberfield) filed in this court a Notice of Appeal Subject To Leave seeking leave to appeal against the whole of the decision and orders made by the Magistrate at Brisbane dated 9 October and 19 November 1998.

[2] The Magistrate had adjudged that Mr. Stubberfield was liable to pay Lippiatt & Co (the solicitors) $11.314.95 for fees owing to the solicitors for acting for Mr. Stubberfield in bankruptcy proceedings brought by Paradise Grove Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The Magistrate ordered Mr. Stubberfield pay the costs of the proceedings before the Magistrate being a sum of $6,865.25 and interest on the solicitors’ claim in the sum of $3,509.17. The total judgment was $21,689.37.

[3] On 24 June 2002 His Honour Judge McGill S.C. (His Honour) heard Mr. Stubberfield’s application to extend the time within which to appeal against the Magistrate’s decision and order. His Honour dismissed Mr. Stubberfield’s application and ordered that Mr. Stubberfield pay the solicitors their costs of the application to be assessed.

[4] An appeal by Mr. Stubberfield to the Court of Appeal against His Honour’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 25 October 2002.

[5] On 11 July 2002 the solicitors filed in this court an application to the Registrar to have the solicitors’ costs ordered by His Honour and to be paid by Mr. Stubberfield, assessed. The application was accompanied by a costs statement (the costs statement) in the form approved under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (the UCPR). The costs statement contained the solicitors’ bill of costs. Mr. Stubberfield filed his objections to the costs statement on 20 August 2002 (the objections). The solicitors replied to those objections. The Registrar completed the assessment on 16 September 2002. Mr. Stubberfield filed further objections to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Co

Details

AGLC: Stubberfield v Lippiatt and Co [2003] QDC 34
Case: [2003] QDC 34
Decision Date: 17 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Co, the plaintiff, Stubberfield, sought to challenge a costs assessment made by the Registrar following the conclusion of the litigation between the parties. The nature of the dispute pertained to the review of the costs incurred and the subsequent assessment of these costs by the Registrar. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the Registrar’s reconsideration of the costs was under scrutiny.

The central legal issues the court needed to resolve involved the appropriateness of the costs items included in the Registrar's assessment, and whether these items complied with the provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the court examined the application of rules 371, 375, 377, 378, 690(1), 690(2)(b), 690(5), 703, 717, and 742, in determining the validity of the costs claimed and the process by which the Registrar arrived at the final costs assessment.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the costs assessment, evaluating the individual items against the legal framework provided by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court concluded that several items in the costs assessment were either not authorised by the Rules or were excessive. Consequently, the court varied the Registrar’s costs assessment, reducing the amount awarded. The judgment provided clarity on the permissible scope of costs that could be claimed and the manner in which such costs should be assessed, ensuring compliance with the stipulated Rules.

The final orders of the court mandated a revised costs assessment that reflected the court's findings, thus ensuring that the costs awarded were both reasonable and in accordance with the applicable legal standards.

Orders