SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Trouton v Trouton [2025] QCA 128
PARTIES:
CHRISTINE NICOLE TROUTON
(appellant)
v
NEIL SIMON TROUTON
(first respondent)
LEANNE TROUTON
(second respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 5885 of 2024
SC No 6965 of 2017DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 54 (Williams J)DELIVERED ON:
18 July 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
18 February 2025
JUDGES:
Mullins P and Flanagan and Brown JJA
ORDERS:
1. Application filed on 26 November 2024 for leave to adduce evidence refused with costs.
2. Application for leave to file the further amended notice of appeal dated 3 February 2025 refused with costs.
3. Appeal allowed.
4. Orders made by the primary judge on 11 and 18 April 2024 are set aside.
5. Application filed by the respondents in the Trial Division on 31 October 2022 (the non-party application) is dismissed.
6. Subject to orders 1 and 2, the respondents must pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal (excluding the costs of the preparation of the second and third versions of the supplementary record books), the appellant’s costs of the non-party application and the costs reserved in the order of the primary judge made on 12 June 2024.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES – NON-PARTIES GENERALLY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was the daughter of the plaintiff in the original proceeding – where the mother made an allegation of fraud against the respondents regarding the transfer of real property owned by the mother and her late husband – where the appellant’s real property searches caused the initial letter of demand to be sent to the respondents which triggered the original proceeding and the appellant supported the mother in her pursuit of the litigation – where the mother was not full and frank in her disclosure to the appellant about the circumstances of the transfer of the property – where the mother obtained almost all the funding to conduct the litigation from sources other than the appellant – where the appellant sent text messages to the respondents encouraging them to settle the original proceeding as the mother had no assets and would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs order – where it was clear from the appellant’s text messages she did not contemplate a non-party costs order may be sought by the respondents against her – where the respondents did not warn the appellant of their intention to seek a non-party costs order against her – where the mother’s original proceeding was dismissed – where the primary judge made a non-party costs order against the appellant – whether the primary judge erred in the exercise of the discretion to make a non-party costs order against the appellant
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES – NOTICE OR WARNING – where the appellant was the daughter of the plaintiff…
Continue reading Trouton v Trouton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Trouton v Trouton [2025] QCA 128
- Case
- [2025] QCA 128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the primary judge erred in making the non-party costs order against the appellant, given that she was not fully informed about the litigation’s circumstances and did not contemplate such an order. The court also examined whether the respondents' failure to warn the appellant of their intention to seek a non-party costs order against her was determinative. The appeal hinged on whether it was in the interests of justice to impose a non-party costs order on the appellant and whether the primary judge appropriately considered the respondents' failure to warn the appellant of their intention to seek such an order. The court had to balance the appellant's involvement in the litigation, her lack of full disclosure, and the respondents' failure to warn her against the possibility of a non-party costs order.
The court found that the primary judge did not adequately consider the respondents' failure to warn the appellant of their intention to seek a non-party costs order against her, which was a significant factor in the exercise of the discretion. The court held that the primary judge erred in making the non-party costs order against the appellant because it was not in the interests of justice to do so, given the circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the primary judge were set aside. The respondents' application for a non-party costs order against the appellant was dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, the non-party costs application, and the costs reserved in the primary judge's order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application filed on 26 November 2024 for leave to adduce evidence refused with costs.
2. Application for leave to file the further amended notice of appeal dated 3 February 2025 refused with costs.
3. Appeal allowed.
4. Orders made by the primary judge on 11 and 18 April 2024 are set aside.
5. Application filed by the respondents in the Trial Division on 31 October 2022 (the non-party application) is dismissed.
6. Subject to orders 1 and 2, the respondents must pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal (excluding the costs of the preparation of the second and third versions of the supplementary record books), the appellant’s costs of the non-party application and the costs reserved in the order of the primary judge made on 12 June 2024.
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.