Urquhart v Partington

Case [2016] QCA 199

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

John Urquhart t/as Hart Renovations v Partington & Anor [2016] QCA 199

PARTIES:

JOHN URQUHART T/AS HART RENOVATIONS
(applicant)
v
PHILIP PARTINGTON
EVELYN PARTINGTON
(respondents)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6079 of 2015
QCATA No 131 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal at Brisbane – [2015] QCATA 67

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison JA and Henry J
Judgment of the Court

ORDERS:

1.   The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed if not otherwise agreed.

2.   The respondent is granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE –  QUEENSLAND APPEAL COSTS FUND – POWER TO GRANT INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE – WHEN GRANTED – where the court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision below and returned the matter to the QCAT Appeal Tribunal – whether the successful applicant appellant should have his costs of the appeal – whether this court should make a costs order in respect of the proceeding below – whether this court should grant the unsuccessful respondent a certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld)

Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 15
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 15
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681, r 766

Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru (No 2) (2015) 90 ALJR 270; (2015) 327 ALR 192; [2015] HCA 53, applied
John Urquhart t/as Hart Renovations v Partington & Anor[2016] QCA 87, cited
Lauchlan v Hartley [1980] Qd R 149, applied
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, cited
Sequel Drill & Blast P/L v Whitsunday Crushers P/L (No 2)[2009] QCA 239, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the applicant, the applicant’s submissions were heard on the papers
No appearance for the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers

SOLICITORS:

Saal & Associates for the applicant
Blue Fox Legal for the respondent

  1. THE COURT:  It is necessary to determine three costs issues in the wake of this Court granting leave to appeal and allowing the appeal in this matter.[1]

  1. Those issues are:

1.         whether the applicant appellant (“the builder”) should have his costs of the appeal;

2.         whether this Court should make a costs order in respect of the proceeding below; and

3.         whether this Court should grant the respondent (“the owners”) a certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

1. The appellant’s costs of the appeal

  1. The present proceeding was an application for leave to appeal.  That application was granted.

  1. The merits of the appeal were argued on the hearing of…

Continue reading Urquhart v Partington

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
John Urquhart t/as Hart Renovations v Partington [2016] QCA 199
Case
[2016] QCA 199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Urquhart v Partington, the appellant sought costs associated with an appeal against a decision made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal's decision was subsequently appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the appellant, having successfully appealed, was entitled to costs for the appeal and whether the court should also consider making a costs order for the proceeding below. Additionally, the Court was required to decide if the unsuccessful respondent should be granted an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).

The Court examined the statutory provisions and relevant legal precedents concerning the awarding of costs in appeals. The Court noted that the successful party in an appeal is generally entitled to costs, but the extent of these costs is subject to the discretion of the Court. The Court also considered whether the unsuccessful respondent's financial situation warranted granting an indemnity certificate, which would protect the respondent from having to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceeding below.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision below, and remitted the matter back to the QCAT Appeal Tribunal. In its ruling, the Court determined that the appellant was entitled to his costs of the appeal, which were to be assessed if not agreed upon. The Court also decided to grant the respondent an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal, recognising the respondent's financial circumstances. These orders reflect a balanced approach, ensuring the successful party receives compensation for their efforts while also protecting the respondent from disproportionate financial burden.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed if not otherwise agreed.

2. The respondent is granted an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

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.