SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Trouton v Trouton & Anor (No 3) [2024] QSC 54 PARTIES: PATRICIA ANN TROUTON (applicant) v
NEIL SIMON TROUTON(first defendant) LEANNE TROUTON (second defendant) FILE NO/S: BS No 6965 of 2017 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING Supreme Court at Brisbane COURT: DELIVERED ON: 11 April 2024 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 7 December 2023 JUDGE: Williams J ORDER: 1. The third party, Christine Trouton, pay the defendants’ costs calculated on the indemnity basis in respect of the plaintiff’s claim, including reserved costs. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – PARTIES AND NON- PARTIES – NON-PARTIES GENERALLY – application for costs order against third party – where orders were made in
respect of costs as between the plaintiff and the defendants –
where the respondent sought an order that a third party pay
the defendants’ costs of the proceeding in respect of the
plaintiff’s claim on an indemnity basis – where the
defendants submit the third party was the person who caused
the action – where the Court has a discretionary power to
award costs against a non-party – whether the discretion be
exercised in the current circumstances to make a costs order
against the third party – whether evidence and findings at trial
can be used in respect of the current application – whether the
interests of justice favour a non-party costs order being made
against the third party– whether the third party should be
ordered to pay the defendants’ costs in respect of the
plaintiff’s claim on a standard or indemnity basisCivil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15
Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 127Beach Retreat Pty Ltd v Mooloolaba Marina Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 356 Burns v State of Queensland and Croton [2007] QCA 240
Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No
10) [2009] FCA 498
Dwyer v Nel [2021] QCA 165
FPM Constructions v Council of the City of Blue Mountains[2005] NSWCA 340 Grocon Constructors (Qld) Pty Ltd v Juniper Developer No 2
Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 102
Ipex ITG Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Victoria [2014] VSCA315 Kebaro Pty Ltd v Saunders [2003] FCAFC 5
KMB v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (No 2) [2018]1 Qd R 500 Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178; (1992) 107 ALR 585; [1992] HCA 28 MG Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd v Vinciguerra (No 2) [2011] FCAFC 48; 276 ALR 319 Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson [1994] QB 179
Trouton v Trouton & Another (No 2) [2023] QSC 29
Trouton v Trouton [2022] QSC 210
Yu v Cao [2015] NSWCA 276; (2016) 19 NSWLR 190COUNSEL: G R Allan for the applicant
G W Dietz for the respondentSOLICITORS: Walt Allan for the applicant
Rose Litigation for the respondent
On 30 September 2022, I published reasons in respect of the claim and counterclaim
(Trial Reasons).1
On 4 November 2022, judgment was pronounced…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Trouton v Trouton & Anor (No 3) 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.
Details
- Case
- [2024] QSC 54
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved a dispute between a husband and wife, with the wife seeking financial orders in the Family Court. The case was the third in a series of proceedings between the parties. The third party, Christine Trouton, who had been a party in an earlier proceeding, was also involved in the latest application. The plaintiff sought to have the third party pay the costs of the proceedings, which were being conducted on an indemnity basis.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the third party, who was not a party to the current proceedings but had been involved in earlier proceedings, was liable for the costs of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants. The court needed to determine if the third party could be held responsible for the costs, and if so, to what extent.
The court found that the third party was liable to pay the defendants’ costs of the plaintiff’s claim. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the third party’s involvement in earlier proceedings and their connection to the current proceedings. The court held that as the third party had been a party in a previous proceeding that was closely related to the current proceedings, they could be held responsible for the costs. The court ordered that the third party pay the defendants’ costs calculated on the indemnity basis, including reserved costs.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the third party, who was not a party to the current proceedings but had been involved in earlier proceedings, was liable for the costs of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants. The court needed to determine if the third party could be held responsible for the costs, and if so, to what extent.
The court found that the third party was liable to pay the defendants’ costs of the plaintiff’s claim. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the third party’s involvement in earlier proceedings and their connection to the current proceedings. The court held that as the third party had been a party in a previous proceeding that was closely related to the current proceedings, they could be held responsible for the costs. The court ordered that the third party pay the defendants’ costs calculated on the indemnity basis, including reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The third party, Christine Trouton, pay the defendants’ costs calculated on the indemnity basis in respect of the plaintiff’s claim, including reserved costs.
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.