Sushames v Pine Rivers SC

Case •

[2006] QCA 205

•

26 May 2006

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sushames & Ors v Pine Rivers SC & Ors [2006] QCA 205

PARTIES:

STEPHEN SUSHAMES, SHARON SUSHAMES AND HILLMIR PTY LTD (TRADING AS J B GOODWIN MIDSON & PARTNERS) ACN 009 728 634
(appellant/first respondent)
v
PINE RIVERS SHIRE COUNCIL
(respondent/second respondent)
SONCOM PTY LTD ACN 108 029 634
(co-respondent/third respondent)
CENNZEAL PTY LTD ACN 091 984 744
(applicant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9408 of 2005
DC No 107 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Integrated Planning Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Planning and Environment Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 26 May 2006
Further Order delivered 9 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 May 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and White J
Judgment of the Court

FURTHER ORDER:

In addition to the orders delivered on 26 May 2006, Cennzeal Pty Ltd to pay the third respondent's costs of the hearing of 24 April 2006 to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - where Court of Appeal allowed leave to appeal but dismissed appeal - where third respondent sought recovery of its costs of a directions hearing - whether costs should follow the event

COUNSEL:

D J S Jackson QC for the applicant
B Lillywhite (sol) for the first respondent
A N S Skoien for the second respondent
J J Haydon for the third respondent

SOLICITORS:

John M O'Connor & Company for the applicant
MacDonnells for the first respondent

Pine Rivers Shire Council Legal Services Department for the second respondent
Wendy Hart for the third respondent

  1. THE COURT:  On 26 May 2006, the application by Cennzeal Pty Ltd for leave to appeal was granted, but its appeal was dismissed.  This Court ordered that Cennzeal Pty Ltd should pay the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

  1. The third respondent, Soncom Pty Ltd, has sought an order for the recovery of its costs of a directions hearing on 24 April 2006.  This hearing was occasioned by Cennzeal Pty Ltd's failure to deliver its outline of argument in accordance with para 30(a) of Practice Direction 1 of 2005.  The costs of that hearing were reserved.

  1. In the absence of any reason to order to the contrary, those reserved costs should follow the event of the appeal.

Order

  1. Accordingly, this Court orders, in addition to its orders of 26 May 2006, that Cennzeal Pty Ltd pay the third respondent's costs of the hearing of 24 April 2006 to be assessed on the standard basis.

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0