Taylor David Pty Ltd v Walker - [2020] QDC 334

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Taylor David Pty Ltd v Walker [2020] QDC 334

PARTIES:

TAYLOR DAVID PTY LTD ACN 143 938 603

(applicant)

v

ROBYN WALKER

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD 717/20

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 August 2020, ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 August 2020

JUDGE:

Barlow QC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Leave to appeal be refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – amount claimed in the Magistrates Court was less than the minor civil dispute limit – whether interest accrued since the commencement of the proceeding is included in the “amount involved” in the proceeding – whether leave to appeal is required

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – applicant seeks to appeal a decision to award indemnity costs in favour of the respondent – whether there are important questions of law or justice which merit the granting of leave to appeal – whether leave to appeal should be granted

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – UNREASONABLE CONDUCT OR DELINQUENCY RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS – respondent seeks costs on the indemnity basis – respondent submits that the appellant was responsible for delays in the progress of the matter – respondent submits that the costs of bringing the application exceed the difference between the amount over which the application for leave to appeal was brought – whether bringing the application for leave to appeal was justified – whether indemnity costs should be ordered

Magistrate Courts Act 1921, s 4, s 4AAA, s 45

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 150(3), r 159

Platinum Investment Group Proprietary Limited v Anderson [2018] 3 Qd R 305, cited

COUNSEL:

M Walker for the appellant

AJH Morris QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Enyo Lawyers for the appellant

Australian Law Partners for the respondent

Whether leave to appeal is required

By notice of appeal filed in this court on 6 March 2020 pursuant to section 45 of the Magistrate Courts Act 1921, the appellant sought to appeal against a decision of Magistrate Shearer made on 7 February 2020, in which his Honour dismissed the appellant’s application for an order dispensing with the signature of the defendant on the request for trial date and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of that application on the indemnity basis. The appeal does not seek to appeal the substantive order refusing to dispense with the signature of the defendant on the request of trial date. It seeks only to appeal the order for costs and, in particular, the order that the costs be paid on the indemnity basis.
The question arises whether the plaintiff needed the leave of this court to commence this appeal because, in the…

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 Taylor David Pty Ltd v Walker

Details

AGLC: Taylor David Pty Ltd v Walker [2020] QDC 334
Case: [2020] QDC 334
Decision Date: 31 August 2020, ex tempore

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor David Pty Ltd v Walker, the applicant, Taylor David Pty Ltd, sought to appeal a decision from the Magistrates Court of Queensland. The original matter involved a dispute where the amount claimed was below the minor civil dispute limit. The applicant contested the award of indemnity costs made in favour of the respondent, Walker. The central legal issues were whether interest accrued since the commencement of the proceeding is included in the “amount involved” in the proceeding and whether leave to appeal is required when the initial amount claimed did not meet the threshold for appeal.

The court examined the jurisdictional requirements for appealing from the Magistrates Court, considering whether the inclusion of interest in the amount claimed justified the appeal. The court also assessed whether there were important questions of law or justice that warranted granting leave to appeal, particularly in light of the costs associated with the application. Given the significant costs incurred by the respondent and the lack of substantial grounds for appeal, the court concluded that leave to appeal should be refused.

As a result of the refusal of leave to appeal, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application on the indemnity basis, reflecting the unreasonable conduct related to the proceedings. The court found that the applicant's decision to pursue the appeal was unjustified, and thus, the respondent was entitled to indemnity costs to compensate for the expenses incurred.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal be refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application on the indemnity basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Taylor David Pty Ltd v Walker [2020] QDC 334
PARTIES:	TAYLOR DAVID PTY LTD ACN 143 938 603 (applicant) v ROBYN WALKER (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD 717/20
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	31 August 2020, ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 August 2020
JUDGE:	Barlow QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Leave to appeal be refused. 2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application on the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – amount claimed in the Magistrates Court was less than the minor civil dispute limit – whether interest accrued since the commencement of the proceeding is included in the “amount involved” in the proceeding – whether leave to appeal is required APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – applicant seeks to appeal a decision to award indemnity costs in favour of the respondent – whether there are important questions of law or justice which merit the granting of leave to appeal – whether leave to appeal should be granted PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – UNREASONABLE CONDUCT OR DELINQUENCY RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS – respondent seeks costs on the indemnity basis – respondent submits that the appellant was responsible for delays in the progress of the matter – respondent submits that the costs of bringing the application exceed the difference between the amount over which the application for leave to appeal was brought – whether bringing the application for leave to appeal was justified – whether indemnity costs should be ordered Magistrate Courts Act 1921, s 4, s 4AAA, s 45 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 150(3), r 159 Platinum Investment Group Proprietary Limited v Anderson [2018] 3 Qd R 305, cited
COUNSEL:	M Walker for the appellant AJH Morris QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Enyo Lawyers for the appellant Australian Law Partners for the respondent