QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Thompson v Cannon [2020] QCAT 109
PARTIES: EMMA THOMPSON (applicant)
v
JESSICA ANN CANNON TRADING AS CANNON & CO LAW (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCL080-18
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
29 May 2020
HEARING DATE:
16 March 2020
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Hon Peter Lyons QC, Judicial Member
ORDERS: 1. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
2. The respondent’s application is otherwise dismissed.
3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs, assessed at $20,699.65.
CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – REMUNERATION – COSTS AGREEMENTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant applied to the Tribunal to set aside a costs agreement – where the Tribunal made orders for the parties to engage in mediation – where the mediation resulted in the execution of a deed – where the applicant failed to make the payment agreed to under the deed – where the respondent sought the applicant’s consent regarding draft orders but no consent was given – where the respondent brought an application seeking the dismissal of the applicant’s application, the making of the agreed payment with interest, past and future costs of enforcing the deed, and a declaration that the deed created a charge over a property to secure payment – where the respondent offered to consent to orders that both applications be dismissed with no order for costs – where no response received – whether the applications should be dismissed
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OTHER MATTERS – where s 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) requires parties to ordinarily bear their own costs in a proceeding – where s 102(1) of that Act gives the Tribunal discretion to make a costs order in favour of a party if it considers the interests of justice require the making of such an order – where s 102(3) sets out a number of factors that the Tribunal may have regard to, including whether a party acted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged another party, and anything else the Tribunal considers relevant – where the applicant failed to perform obligations agreed to in a mediation – where the applicant refused to accept offers to settle the proceedings - whether the interests of justice require the making of a costs order
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – NATURE OF COSTS: INDEMNITY DOCTRINE – APPLICATION TO PARTICULAR PERSON OR PARTY – OTHER CASES – where the respondent is the principal of an incorporated legal practice – where the incorporated legal practice has conducted proceedings on behalf of the respondent – where most of the work of the incorporated legal practice in the proceedings has been performed by the respondent – whether the respondent can recover her costs in these proceedings
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 24, s 110, s 113, s 117, s 120, s 122, s 125, s 328
Continue reading Thompson v Cannon
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Thompson v Cannon [2020] QCAT 109
- Case
- [2020] QCAT 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the interests of justice required the making of a costs order under s 102(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), given the applicant's failure to perform obligations agreed to in a mediation and refusal to accept offers to settle the proceedings. The court also needed to determine whether the respondent could recover her costs in these proceedings, as most of the work of the incorporated legal practice in the proceedings had been performed by the respondent.
The court held that the applicant’s application should be dismissed, and the respondent’s application should be otherwise dismissed. The court found that the interests of justice required the making of a costs order in favour of the respondent. The court assessed the respondent’s costs at $20,699.65, which the applicant was required to pay.
The final orders of the court were that the applicant’s application was dismissed, the respondent’s application was otherwise dismissed, and the applicant was to pay the respondent’s costs, assessed at $20,699.65.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
2. The respondent’s application is otherwise dismissed.
3. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs, assessed at $20,699.65.
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.