Telco Worx (Aust) Pty Ltd v Matejcich & Telecube Pty Ltd

[2011] QDC 85

[2011] QDC 85

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 1931 of 2010

TELCO WORX (AUST) PTY LTD	Plaintiff
and
JOHN ROBERT MATEJCICH and TELECUBE PTY LTD	Defendants

BRISBANE

..DATE 31/03/2011

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 5, r 435(12), r 687

Costs of application for an order for particulars of a defence of self-represented defendants - particulars supplied on eve of hearing - costs fixed by court reduced in circumstances including reproduction of filed documents multiple times which ought have been avoided

HIS HONOUR:  The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft.  It dismisses the plaintiff's application for an order for particulars of the defence to be supplied in circumstances where those were supplied yesterday after the plaintiff's solicitors had gone through the usual preliminaries, including the rule 444 letter.

Mr Matejcich, the second defendant, is now representing himself and the company, having filed a notice of defendant acting in person.

He protests a desire to see the matter settled by discussion which the court would support, but without much confidence given that he's communicated to the court the view that nothing is owing to the plaintiff.  The fight is about deficiencies in a client list that the plaintiff purchased from the defendant which the plaintiff says disappointed its expectations.

Mr Matejcich's difficulties in supplying the particulars on his own are irrelevant so far as the plaintiff's entitlement to costs is concerned.

I am not persuaded the court ought to act on his contention that the plaintiff company had information about the request for particulars.  He has fairly accepted that the plaintiff's solicitors wouldn't.  It's their function to work up a case, and indeed it is a worthwhile exercise, speaking generally, to get particulars of a defence or any pleading with a view to confining the party giving them accordingly.

The last aspect concerns costs which Ms Kelly asked me to fix.  She has gained leave to read and file an affidavit of her own which I assume is correct in calculating scale costs at $1,277.20.  She accepted the court's offer to fix the costs under rule 687.  Although she's correct in saying that there are no claims for outlays such as photocopying, it is a matter of concern to me to see that in the filed affidavit of Ms Kelly the request for particulars is reproduced no less than four times and other correspondence is there more than once.  This is in part explained by the defendants having become self representing and communications being sent multiple times, also by later communications including copies of earlier correspondence with enclosures to it.  I understand, as a general principle in the rules, that documents oughtn't be put on the court file more than once.  See rule 435(12), also rule 5.  The unfortunate circumstances of multiple replications are one of the reasons why I thought it appropriate to make the generous discount to $800 which I have in fixing the costs; there is likely to be an element of discounting thenever a judge fixes costs under rule 687, unless the party having to pay them accepts the amount claimed as appropriate; Ms Kelly accepted the proposal.

The order as per initialled draft.  Thank you.

‑‑‑‑‑