Trouton v Trouton (No 2)

Case [2023] QSC 29

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Trouton v Trouton & Another (No 2) [2023] QSC 29

PARTIES:

PATRICIA ANN TROUTON

(plaintiff)

v
NEIL SIMON TROUTON
(first defendant)
LEANNE TROUTON

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 6965 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2022

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDER:

1.    The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs calculated on the indemnity basis in respect of the plaintiff’s claim, including reserved costs.

2.    Each party bear their own costs in respect of the counterclaim.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS – OFFER OF COMPROMISE OR OFFER TO SETTLE OR CONSENT TO JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES – GENERALLY – where there was a claim and counterclaim – where the defendant made a formal offer to settle claim and counterclaim – where the defendant’s offer was for an all-up sum that did not distinguish between the claim and counterclaim – where the parties agreed that each party should bear their own costs in respect of the counterclaim – whether rr 360 and 361 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) apply to the defendants’ offer to settle – whether the offers could be compared with the net result of judgments on the claim and counterclaim

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – where the plaintiff was totally unsuccessful on the claim – where the defendants were partly successful and partly unsuccessful on the counterclaim – whether the Court has discretion as to costs under r 681 UCPR – whether the Court should depart from the general rule as to costs

Land Title Act 1992 (Qld), s 127, s 187

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 184, r 353, r 360, r 361, r 681

AKS Investment Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank (No 2) [2012] QSC 282

Balnaves v Smith & Anor [2012] QSC 408

Binaray Pty Ltd (ACN 119 724 211) as Trustee for the Allen Family Trust v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited [2019] QSC 280

Brother Industries Ltd v Dynamics Supplies Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 126

Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd v Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 1

Colgate Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; (1993) 46 FCR 225

Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Ors v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd & Ors and Coopers & Lybrand & Ors [2003] QSC 299

Fairfield Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Leggett [2020] QSC 183

Tremco Pty Ltd v Thomson [2018] QDC 109

Trouton v Trouton & Another [2022] QSC 210

Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd [2021] QCA 8

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris KC, with I Erskine for the plaintiff

G Allan for the first…

Continue reading Trouton v Trouton (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Trouton v Trouton (No 2) [2023] QSC 29
Case
[2023] QSC 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trouton v Trouton (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, with the matter being heard in a relevant Australian court. The case included both a claim by the plaintiff and a counterclaim by the defendants. The central issue in the case was whether certain offers made by the defendants to settle the dispute could be considered under the rules governing offers of compromise, and if so, how they should be compared with the net results of the judgments on the claim and counterclaim. The court was also required to determine whether the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) applied to the defendants' offer to settle and, if the plaintiff was entirely unsuccessful on their claim while the defendants were partly successful and partly unsuccessful on the counterclaim, whether the court had discretion to decide on the costs under rule 681 of the UCPR.

The court examined the nature of the defendants' offer, which was an all-up sum without distinction between the claim and counterclaim. It also considered the agreement between the parties that each should bear their own costs in respect of the counterclaim. The court determined that the rules concerning offers of compromise and the general principle that costs follow the event did not apply in this context, given the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the defendants' offer to settle could not be compared with the net result of the judgments on the claim and counterclaim, and that the court had discretion to decide on the costs under rule 681 of the UCPR.

Following this reasoning, the court made specific orders. It directed that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs calculated on the indemnity basis in respect of the plaintiff’s claim, including reserved costs. Additionally, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs in respect of the counterclaim. This outcome was based on the court's assessment of the procedural aspects of the case, the nature of the offers made, and the ultimate results of the judgments.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs calculated on the indemnity basis in respect of the plaintiff’s claim, including reserved costs.

2. Each party bear their own costs in respect of the counterclaim.

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.