Thorne Developments Pty Ltd v Laird

[2022] QSC 139

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thorne Developments Pty Ltd v Laird [2022] QSC 139

PARTIES:

THORNE DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

(Plaintiff)

v
GRAHAM DAVID LAIRD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE LAIRD FAMILY TRUST
(First Defendant)
and
RICK WILLIAMSON INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 120 400 446
(Second Defendant)
and
GRAHAM DAVID LAIRD
(Third Defendant)
and
RICHARD JOHN WILLIAMSON

(Fourth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS3570 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial of separate questions

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 July 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Determined without an oral hearing

JUDGE:

Bradley J

ORDER:

No Order as to the costs of the hearing and determination of the separate issue resolved by the Orders made on 16 June 2022.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – PRACTICE – PLAINITFF SUBSTANTIALLY SUCCESSFUL AT HEARING OF SEPARATE ISSUE - DEREGISTRATION - VALIDATING ORDERS – where the plaintiff substantially successful at hearing of separate issue seeks an order that the defendants pay costs – where the plaintiff was represented by a director and not legally represented at any material time – whether the Court should make any order as to costs.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681

Cachia v Hanes [1994] 179 CLR 403, followed.
George v Fletcher (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 71, cited.

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff did not engage solicitors
Macrossan & Amiet for the defendants

1. On 16 June 2022, the Court made orders pursuant to s 601AH(3)(c) and (d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Those orders were part of the relief sought by the plaintiff in this proceeding. On 18 October 2021, Davis J had directed that this part of the relief be the subject of a separate hearing and decision. The separate hearing was conducted before me on 3, 4 and 5 May 2022.

2. The plaintiff’s substantive claim against the defendants is for $1,476,775, alleged to be payable under various written agreements.  It is yet to be determined.  However, the separate hearing concerned the validation of the plaintiff’s entry into those agreements. 

3. By the orders made on 16 June 2022, the plaintiff has obtained most of the relief it sought at the hearing.  In reasons published that day, I indicated that, in the absence of any competing consideration, costs of the separate hearing should follow the event.  I allowed the parties time to file any written submissions on costs. 

4. On 23 June 2022, in a written submission from Mr Casey, a director and secretary of the plaintiff, the plaintiff sought:

   “An order that the Defendants, or the one or other of them, pay to the Plaintiff, costs of and incidental to the trial of the separate issue ordered by Davis J on 18 October 2021, including reserved costs, on the standard basis, as agreed or assessed.”

5. On 30 June 2022, the solicitors for the defendants provided written submissions. In these, the defendants accepted that costs should follow the event in accordance with r 681, and that the plaintiff had been “largely successful in relation to the relief sought…