Von Stieglitz v Dixon (No. 3)
[2017] QDC 25
•15 February 2017
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Von Stieglitz v Dixon (No. 3) [2017] QDC 25
PARTIES:
PATRICK VON STIEGLITZ
(appellant)v
KENDALL MARIE DIXON (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS)
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
D36/16
DIVISION:
Criminal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:
15 February 2017
DELIVERED AT:
District Court at Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
Respondent’s submissions undated
Appellant’s submissions dated 10 February 2017
JUDGE:
Smith DCJA
ORDER:
1. I order the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $3,500.
CATCHWORDS:
COSTS – whether the appellant should pay the costs of unsuccessful appeal
Justices Act 1886 (Q) s 222, s 232A
Justices Regulation 2014 (Q) s 19A Schedule 2, part 1 and part 2
COUNSEL:
Self-represented appellant
Ms S Gibson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Self-represented appellant
Department of Transport and Main Roads for the respondent
This is the costs decision consequent upon the decision given in Von Stieglitz v Dixon (No. 2). [1]
[1][2017] QDC 16.
The respondent submits that the appellants should pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal in the sum of $4,137.42. The appellant, on the other hand, submits he is under severe financial hardship, cannot support the ship with his income, pay the fines imposed, or look after the health of his wife. He has no other assets.
Section 226 of the Justices Act 1886 (Q) provides that a court may make such order as to costs to be paid by other party as the judge thinks just.
Section 232A of the Justices Act 1886 (Q) provides:
“232A Costs for division
(1) In deciding the costs that are just for this division, the judge may award costs only—
(a) for an item allowed for this division under a scale of costs prescribed under a regulation; and
(b) up to the amount allowed for the item under the scale.
(2) However, the judge may allow a higher amount for costs if the judge is satisfied that the higher amount is just having regard to the special difficulty, complexity or importance of the appeal.”
It is not submitted by the respondent that this in an appeal involving special difficulty, complexity or importance.
In my view, the respondent in this matter was wholly successful and should receive an award of costs to compensate her for responding to the appeal. In my view, the sum of $3,500 in total is a just amount. In my opinion, the legal representatives for the respondent could have appeared at the mention by telephone and there was no need for the return flights to Mackay for 11 November 2016, nor the accommodation for that evening. In the circumstances, I will reduce the amount sought to $3,500.
My order then is that the appellant pays the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $3,500.
0