SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Veesaunt Property Syndicate 1 Pty Ltd v Alliance Building and Construction Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] QSC 161 PARTIES: VEESAUNT PROPERTY SYNDICATE 1 PTY LTD
(applicant)
vALLIANCE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
(respondent)
FILENO/S: BS 14468 of 2022 DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVEREDON: 18 July 2023 DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane HEARINGDATE: Heard on the papers JUDGE: Brown J ORDER: The respondent pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis, to be agreed or assessed. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where the applicant applied for various declarations in relation to a contract for the construction of residential townhouses – where the applicant was ultimately successful albeit that it did not succeed on all arguments raised – where orders were made for the parties to file and serve submissions as to costs within seven days of the date of judgment – where no submissions were received from the respondent – whether an order for costs should be made in the applicant’s favour
SOLICITORS: Shand Taylor Lawyers for the applicant CDI Lawyers for the respondent
2
In relation to this matter, Veesaunt Property Syndicate 1 Pty Ltd (Veesaunt) was ultimately successful in its application for declarations albeit that it did not succeed on all arguments raised. Veesaunt sought its costs of the application on a standard basis on the basis that costs should follow the event. Orders were made on 14 June 2023 for Alliance Building and Construction Pty Ltd (Alliance) to provide submissions within seven days in relation to costs so the Court could determine the question of costs on the papers. No submissions were received. Veesaunt requested that the Court make an order in respect of costs on the papers and in its favour. Alliance was informed on 12 July 2023 that the Court would proceed to determine the question of costs on the papers. Notwithstanding that, no submissions were received by the Court from Alliance. Consistent with the principles outlined by the McHugh J in Oshlack v Richmond River Council,1 costs should follow the event, notwithstanding Veesaunt did not succeed on all arguments raised given it was successful overall and the issues upon which it was unsuccessful were necessarily intertwined with the issue upon which it was successful and did not materially expand the hearing.
(1998) 193 CLR 72 at 97. As to which see McMurdo J in AGL Sales (Qld) Pty Ltd v Dawson Sales Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] QSC 75 at [16].
- AGLC
- Veesaunt Property Syndicate 1 Pty Ltd v Alliance Building and Construction Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] QSC 161
- Case
- [2023] QSC 161
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether an order for costs should be made in favour of the applicant, despite the respondent’s failure to submit any costs submissions. The court considered the principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning that the successful party in a proceeding is usually entitled to an order for costs against the unsuccessful party. However, the court also had to exercise its discretion to ensure that the costs order was fair and just, taking into account the nature of the applicant's success and the absence of submissions from the respondent.
The court noted that while the applicant was successful in its main claims, it had not achieved complete victory. The court observed that the absence of submissions from the respondent did not preclude it from making a costs order. The court emphasised that the respondent's silence did not absolve it of the responsibility to contribute to the costs of the proceedings. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis, to be agreed or assessed.
The court's final order was that the respondent pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis, to be agreed or assessed. This decision highlights the court's role in balancing the principle that costs follow the event with the need to exercise discretion fairly, especially when one party fails to engage in the costs process.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis, to be agreed or assessed.
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.