Sushames v Pine Rivers SC Summary

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

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.

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.

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

Order

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.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sushames v Pine Rivers SC involved a dispute over the recovery of costs incurred during a directions hearing. The matter was before the Court of Appeal, which initially allowed leave to appeal but subsequently dismissed the appeal. The third respondent in the case sought to recover its costs from the directions hearing. The central legal issue before the court was whether the costs incurred during the directions hearing should follow the event, given that the appeal had been dismissed.

The Court of Appeal addressed the principle that costs generally follow the event. This principle means that the unsuccessful party in a legal proceeding typically bears the costs of the proceeding. However, the court also acknowledged exceptions to this rule, particularly when the costs are deemed to be unreasonable or when there are special circumstances warranting a different outcome. In this case, the court had to determine whether the costs incurred during the directions hearing should be borne by the party that lost the appeal or if the costs should be considered in light of the exceptional circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal held that the costs should follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party, who had appealed, should bear the costs of the directions hearing. The court emphasised that the general rule applied unless there were specific circumstances that justified a departure from this rule. The court found no such exceptional circumstances in this case, and thus, the party that lost the appeal was ordered to pay the costs of the directions hearing. This decision reaffirmed the principle that costs generally follow the event and highlighted the importance of considering the general rule in the context of the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Sushames v Pine Rivers SC

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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