SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
The Beach Retreat P/L v Mooloolaba Yacht Club Marina Ltd & Ors [2009] QSC 84
PARTIES:
THE BEACH RETREAT PTY LTD ACN 077 526 259
(first plaintiff/first respondent)
THE MOOLOOLABA YACHT CLUB LTD
ACN 010 100 580
(second plaintiff/second respondent)
v
MOOLOOLABA MARINA LTD ACN 010 359 832
(first defendant/first applicant)
SUNSHINE COAST AQUATIC CENTRE PTY LTD
ACN 111 438 361(second defendant/second applicant)
And
ROBERT HEWETT NOBLE
(Third Party)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 3478 of 2008
SC No 2882 of 2006
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
16 April 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
7, 8 and 9 October 2008
JUDGE:
Martin J
CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE – Costs – Fixed Costs - where defendants applied for costs to be fixed – where an expert costs report was prepared - where preparation of additional cost report would be expensive and time-consuming – where plaintiff is impecunious – where plaintiff does not object to costs being fixed - whether costs should be fixed.
Costs – Fixed Costs – where the second defendant changed solicitors 5 days before trial – where the first acting solicitor anticipated a need to give evidence at trial – where the change of legal representation caused the second defendant to incur additional costs – where plaintiffs object without reason to the recovery of additional costs - whether the additional legal costs are recoverable.
Costs – Fixed Costs - where defendants retained separate legal representation – where defendants’ pleadings similar – where defendants had different interests in the proceedings - where plaintiffs object to duplicate legal costs - whether both defendants’ legal costs are recoverable.
COSTS – Non-parties – where defendants seek costs against non-party – where non-party and his wife were the sole shareholders of the first plaintiff – where non-party financed the plaintiffs’ case – where the non-party stood to benefit if the plaintiffs were successful – where the plaintiff directed proceedings to be continued until trial – where plaintiffs, at the direction of the non-party, elected not to call evidence at trial – where plaintiffs did not object to dismissal of claim – where security for costs was asserted to be the appropriate remedy - where non-party was not given notice of defendants’ intention to seek orders him - whether costs should be paid by non-party.
PRACTICE – Costs – where plaintiffs commenced multiple proceedings – where plaintiffs amended their statement of claim four times – where plaintiffs brought (and abandoned) claims against the defendant’s directors - where plaintiffs made allegations of dishonesty – where plaintiffs elected not to bring any evidence at trial – where party did not object to the dismissal of claim – where plaintiffs rejected an offer to settle – whether plaintiffs had any hope of success – whether the plaintiffs were unreasonable in the conduct of their case - whether costs should be paid on an indemnity basis – discussion of principles.
COSTS – Taxation of Costs –…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read The Beach Retreat Pty Ltd v Mooloolaba Marina Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] QSC 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the plaintiffs' financial position, their conduct, and the nature of the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs did not object to the fixing of costs, and that it would be inappropriate to require them to prepare additional cost reports. The court also found that the plaintiffs were impecunious and had no reasonable prospects of success. The court held that the costs of the Marina Company and SCAC should be paid on an indemnity basis, and fixed in the sums of $319,000 and $436,000 respectively. The court further held that the costs of SCAC in respect of its counterclaim should be paid on an indemnity basis and fixed in the sum of $1,500. The costs of the Marina Company and SCAC of and incidental to this application were to be paid on the standard basis.
The court also considered whether the defendants were entitled to recover additional legal costs incurred due to a late change of solicitors by the second defendant. The court found that the plaintiffs had objected to the recovery of these costs without reason, and that the second defendant was entitled to recover the additional costs. The court also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to object to the recovery of duplicate legal costs incurred by the two defendants, as their pleadings were similar and they had different interests in the proceedings. Finally, the court held that the non-party, Robert Hewett Noble, was liable for the costs of the proceedings as he financed the plaintiffs' case and stood to benefit if the plaintiffs were successful.
The final orders of the court were that the costs of the Marina Company and SCAC in defending the proceedings be paid on an indemnity basis and fixed in the sums of $319,000 and $436,000 respectively. The costs of SCAC in respect of its counterclaim be paid on an indemnity basis and fixed in the sum of $1,500. The costs of the Marina Company and SCAC of and incidental to this application be paid on the standard basis. Robert Hewett Noble was liable for all of these costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The costs of the Marina Company in defending these proceedings:(a)
Be paid on an indemnity basis(i)
Be fixed in the sum of $319,000(ii)
Be paid by Robert Hewett Noble.(iii)
The costs of SCAC in defending these proceedings:(b)
Be paid on an indemnity basis(i)
Be fixed in the sum of $436,000(ii)
Be paid by Robert Hewett Noble.(iii)
The costs of SCAC in respect of its counterclaim:(c)
Be paid on an indemnity basis(i)
Be fixed in the sum of $1,500(ii)
Be paid by Robert Hewett Noble(iii)
The costs of the Marina Company and SCAC of and incidental to this application:(d)
Be paid on the standard basis(i)
(ii) Be paid by Beach Retreat, MYC and Robert Hewett Noble.
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.