Travers v McDonagh; Carey v La Rocca - [2013] QDC 177

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Travers v McDonagh ; Carey v La Rocca [2013] QDC 177

PARTIES:

JEFFREY GORDON TRAVERS
(Appellant)

and

JOHN MCDONAGH
(Respondent)

AND

BRETT RICHARD CAREY
(Appellant)

and

KRISTEE LA ROCCA
(Respondent)

FILE NOS:

387/2010 and 388/2010

PROCEEDING:

Appeals from Southport Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2013

JUDGE:

Judge C F Wall QC

ORDERS:

(1) Each appeal allowed to the extent only of adding to the order made in the Magistrates Court an order that the respondent in each case pay the applicant in each case $4,750.00.

(2) In each appeal the respondent is ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed at $1,800.00.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 sections 158, 158A, 158B
Justices Regulation 2004 section 18

CASES:

Interclean Industrial Services Ltd v Auckland Regional Council [2000] 3 NZLR 489
Lucy v Occ Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] QDC 169
Morton v QPS & HREOC [2009] QDC 233
Durrant v Gardner [2002] QDC 198
Santosa v Guerin [2007] QDC 335
Sorenson v Animanto Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 219
Hayes v Surfers Paradise Rock & Roll Café Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 214

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal – Costs – Justices Act – Magistrates Court – higher amount sought – whether case one of special difficulty, complexity or importance.

COUNSEL:

Mr John Lee for each Appellant

Ms E F Kennedy for each Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Griffiths Parry Lawyers for the Appellant Travers
Hannay Lawyers for the Appellant Carey

Queensland Police Service Solicitor for the Respondent

Introduction

These appeals relate to the refusal of an acting Magistrate at Southport to find that the appellants were entitled to costs of a higher amount than those provided for in s 158B(1) of the Justices Act 1886 by reason of the fact that costs of higher amount were warranted “having regard to the special difficulty, complexity or importance of the case” pursuant to s 158B(2).

Each appellant was charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his/her duty on 6 December 2009 at Broadbeach, the police officer in each case being the respondent to each appeal. In each case the offence was alleged to have occurred in a Broadbeach unit.

When the matter came on for hearing the police prosecutor indicated to the defendants before Court that if they were not to ask for costs he would seek instructions in relation to the withdrawal of charges. That offer was rejected by the defendants. The defendants then gave a copy of a video and photographs to the police prosecutor. He went away and played the video. The video was of events in the unit where the offences were said to have taken place.

After viewing the video the police prosecutor came back and told the legal representatives for the defendants that he would offer no evidence. That happened. The defendants then applied for costs basing their application on s 158A of the Justices Act 1886. The photographs are stills taken…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Travers v McDonagh; Carey v La Rocca 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QDC 177
Decision Date: 6 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Travers and Carey (appellants) brought appeals against the decisions of the Magistrates Court of Victoria (respondents) concerning the amount of costs they were ordered to pay. The appellants had been successful in their cases but were dissatisfied with the quantum of costs awarded by the Magistrates Court. They sought a higher amount based on the argument that their cases were of special difficulty, complexity, or importance.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the appellants’ cases were indeed of such special difficulty, complexity, or importance to warrant a higher award of costs than that initially determined by the Magistrates Court. The appellants argued that the lower court did not properly consider the nature and significance of their cases when setting the costs.

The court found that while the appellants' cases did not strictly fit into the traditional categories of special difficulty, complexity, or importance, the original amount of costs awarded was inadequate given the resources expended and the time taken to resolve the matters. The court accepted that the appellants' cases did involve a degree of difficulty and complexity, warranting a higher award of costs. The court awarded each appellant an additional $4,750.00 and ordered the respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Each appeal allowed to the extent only of adding to the order made in the Magistrates Court an order that the respondent in each case pay the applicant in each case $4,750.00.

(2) In each appeal the respondent is ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed at $1,800.00.

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.

CITATION:	Travers v McDonagh ; Carey v La Rocca [2013] QDC 177
PARTIES:	JEFFREY GORDON TRAVERS (Appellant) and JOHN MCDONAGH (Respondent) AND BRETT RICHARD CAREY (Appellant) and KRISTEE LA ROCCA (Respondent)
FILE NOS:	387/2010 and 388/2010
PROCEEDING:	Appeals from Southport Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	6 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2013
JUDGE:	Judge C F Wall QC
ORDERS:	(1) Each appeal allowed to the extent only of adding to the order made in the Magistrates Court an order that the respondent in each case pay the applicant in each case $4,750.00. (2) In each appeal the respondent is ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed at $1,800.00.
LEGISLATION:	Justices Act 1886 sections 158, 158A, 158B Justices Regulation 2004 section 18
CASES:	Interclean Industrial Services Ltd v Auckland Regional Council [2000] 3 NZLR 489 Lucy v Occ Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] QDC 169 Morton v QPS & HREOC [2009] QDC 233 Durrant v Gardner [2002] QDC 198 Santosa v Guerin [2007] QDC 335 Sorenson v Animanto Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 219 Hayes v Surfers Paradise Rock & Roll Café Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 214
CATCHWORDS:	Appeal – Costs – Justices Act – Magistrates Court – higher amount sought – whether case one of special difficulty, complexity or importance.
COUNSEL:	Mr John Lee for each Appellant Ms E F Kennedy for each Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Griffiths Parry Lawyers for the Appellant Travers Hannay Lawyers for the Appellant Carey Queensland Police Service Solicitor for the Respondent