Walters v Drummond

[2019] QSC 322

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walters v Drummond & Ors [2019] QSC 322

PARTIES:

DARREN LESTER WALTERS
(Applicant)

v

SHAUN DRUMMOND, HEALTH SERVICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE PURSUANT TO THE HOSPITAL & HEALTH BOARDS ACT 2011 (QLD)
(First Respondent)

AND

METRO NORTH HOSPITAL & HEALTH SERVICE
(Second Respondent)

AND

ANDREW HOWARD, INVESTIGATOR PURSUANT TO S. 190 OF THE HOSPITAL & HEALTH BOARDS ACT 2011 (QLD)
(Third Respondent)

AND

ADAM FAIRHURST, INVESTIGATOR PURSUANT TO S. 190 OF THE HOSPITAL & HEALTH BOARDS ACT 2011 (QLD)
(Fourth Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 14221/18

DIVISION:

Application for Costs  

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers, without oral hearing 

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

1.       The first and second respondents pay 85 per cent of the applicant’s costs of the applicant’s claim against the first and second respondents on the standard basis.

2.       The third and fourth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the applicant’s claim against the third and fourth respondents on the standard basis.

COUNSEL:

J E Murdoch QC with S T Farrell for the applicant
A L Wheatley QC for the first and second respondents
R P S Jackson QC for the third and fourth respondents

SOLICITORS:

Franklin Athanasellis Cullen Lawyers for the applicant
Clayton Utz for the first and second respondents
McInnes Wilson for the third and fourth respondents

1. Orders were made in the principal decision[1] for the parties to provide further submissions as to costs and any further relief sought.  No orders for any additional relief have been sought. 

   [1]Walters v Drummond & Ors [2019] QSC 290.

2. The applicant seeks costs on the basis that it was successful overall and, therefore, the general position that costs should follow the event should be adopted. The first and second respondents contend that costs should be determined on an issue by issue basis, given the fact that only one ground of review was successful in the applicant’s case against them and some grounds of the original application were not pursued. Alternatively, they contend that there should be no order as to costs, given the mixed success of the parties. The third and fourth respondents do not oppose an order that they pay the applicant’s costs for the claim against them.

3. In reply to the first and second respondents, the applicant contends that if partial costs are awarded, the applicant should be indemnified for the remaining portion of its costs by the third and fourth respondents. The starting point is the general rule, now expressed in r 681(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“the UCPR”), that costs follow the event. However, the Court retains a general discretion. Under r 684, an order may be made for costs in relation to a particular question in, or a particular part of, a proceeding and a court may declare what percentage of the costs of the proceeding is attributable to that question or…