Taylor v Hobson (No 2)

[2017] QSC 157

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Taylor & Anor v Hobson & Ors (No 2) [2017] QSC 157

PARTIES:

ALAN JOHN JEFFREY TAYLOR
(first plaintiff)

And

WANDANI PTY LTD
(second plaintiff)

v

RICHARD HOBSON
(first defendant)

And

HOBSON INVESTMENTS (NQ) PTY LTD (ACN 102 617 050)
(second defendant)

And

ROBERTS NEHMER McKEE
(third defendant)

And

MALCOLM FISHER
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S15 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Interlocutory Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

 26 July 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

On the papers – final submissions received  5 July 2017

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1.      The plaintiffs to pay the costs of the first and second defendants.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND DISCRETION – where the proceedings as between the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants were formerly ordered to be stayed – where the plaintiffs applied to have the stay lifted – where the plaintiffs argued that the circumstances justifying the stay were no longer operative – where the first and second defendants argued that the Deed effected no material changes in circumstances – where the defendants were successful and the stay was not lifted – whether there should be no order as to costs – whether the costs should not follow the event.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 681

Green v Schneller [2003] NSWSC 202, considered

Taylor & Anor v Hobson & Ors [2016] QSC 226, cited

Taylor & Anor v Hobson & Ors [2017] QSC 139, cited

COUNSEL:

PJ McCafferty for the plaintiffs

KC Fleming QC for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

Bartley Cohen for the for the plaintiffs

Connolly Suthers for the first and second defendants

1. McMeekin J: On 23 June 2017 I published my reasons in this matter (see [2017] QSC 139) and reserved the question of costs. The parties have now filed submissions.

1. On 6 October 2016 Boddice J ordered that the proceedings as between the plaintiffs and the first and second defendants be stayed: see [2016] QSC 226. The plaintiffs applied to have the stay lifted arguing that the circumstances justifying the stay were no longer operative by reason of the terms of a Deed entered into between the plaintiffs and the third and fourth defendants. The first and second defendants argued that the Deed effected no material changes in circumstances. Effectively the defendants were successful before me.

1. Normally costs should follow the event: r 681 UCPR. The plaintiffs now submit that there should be no order as to costs because:

(a)        The defendants failed in their argument that the “impermissible intermeddling” found by Boddice J was incurable;

(b)        The defendants’ solicitors had refused to give the plaintiffs any reason why the Deed did not address the concerns identified by Boddice J;

(c)        The defendants delayed until the last minute in identifying any decisive point;

(d)        Had the defendants identified such a precise point then the plaintiffs would not have…