TD v GP

[2006] QDC 385

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

TD v GP [2006] QDC 385

PARTIES:

TD
plaintiff

v

GP
Defendant

FILE NO/S:

3574 of 2005

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Decision on Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Submissions received in writing

JUDGE:

Ryrie DCJ

ORDER:

1. In respect of the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Property Law Act 1974 (which was dismissed), the plaintiff pay to the defendant his costs to be assessed on a standard basis from the 27 July 2005.

2. In respect of the plaintiff’s claim, in the alternative, for damages for breach of a deed (which the plaintiff was only partly successful), the defendant pay to the plaintiff her costs to be assessed on a standard basis and on the magistrates court scale until 27 July 2005 and thereafter the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs to be assessed on a standard basis and on the magistrate courts scale.

3. In respect of the defendant’s counterclaim (which the defendant was wholly successful), the plaintiff pay to the defendant his costs to be assessed on a standard basis and on the magistrate courts scale.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS

Property Law Act 1974, Part 19, s 341

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 361, 689 & 704

COUNSEL:

Mr G Waterman for the plaintiff

Mr P Hackett for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Mullins Lawyers for the plaintiff

Hirst & Co for the defendant

Background

1. The plaintiff had sought relief in this court by claim pursuant to Part 19 Property Law 1974 for a property adjustment order based upon a claim that the parties had been in a de facto relationship together.

1. She also sought alternative relief for damages for breach of a deed dated 9^th August 1999.

1. Judgment was subsequently delivered in this matter on the 11^th October 2006 at which time I invited both parties to deliver submissions in writing regarding the question of costs.

1. Submissions were then delivered on that question for my consideration.

1. The respective Outline of Submissions have each been marked as an Exhibit for the purpose of this decision.

The parties’ respective arguments

1. The plaintiff says that in respect of the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Property LawAct 1974, no order as to costs should be made.

1. In essence, the plaintiff says that even though the plaintiff was unsuccessful in establishing that a de facto relationship existed between the parties, no order as to costs should be made, consistent with the decision of S v B [2004] QCA 449, in particular at para [53].

1. The plaintiff also referred to the costs regime set out in s 341 of the Property Law Act1974 in support of his submission that no order as to costs should be made, with particular reliance on the significant disparity which currently exists between the respective parties’ financial positions.

1. That financial disparity is set out in the plaintiff’s Outline of Submissions.

1. In respect of the plaintiff’s alternative claim (which was allowed in…