Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 156

PARTIES:

PRISCILLA ROBERTA WILKINSON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
STEVENSAM PTY LTD ACN 091 891 235
(first defendant/first applicant)
SAMANTHA ANN DICK and MARTIN LEONG
(second defendant/second applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10045 of 2005
DC No 68 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil) - Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 24 March 2006
Further Order delivered 12 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 March 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and McMurdo J
Judgment of the Court

FURTHER
ORDER:

The formal orders as pronounced on 24 March 2006 should stand, each party bearing its own costs of the original application

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - where Court of Appeal allowed appeal from decision of learned trial judge - where appellants argued the original costs order made by the Court was uncertain and made further submissions on costs - where appellants sought the costs of their appeal

COUNSEL:

D O J North SC, with M T O'Sullivan, for the applicants
J W Lee for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the applicants
Keith Scott & Associates for the respondent

THE COURT: The Court delivered reasons in this matter on 24 March 2006 and the following formal orders were made:

1. Application for leave granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Declaration made below set aside.

4. Respondent to pay the applicants’ costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

Some confusion has been raised with respect to the order in fact made in regards to costs. The orders as set out above were proposed by Keane JA. Williams JA in his reasons said the orders should be:

(i) Appeal allowed with costs.

(ii) Set aside the declaration and order made at first instance and order that the application be dismissed with costs.

McMurdo J agreed in broad terms with the reasons of both the other members of the court.

Notwithstanding the difference in the orders proposed as between Williams JA and Keane JA, the formal order of the court was as pronounced. The parties have raised a concern because it could be said that because McMurdo J agreed with Williams JA the court was equally divided as to the appropriate order.

In the circumstances it is not necessary to say more now than that the formal orders as pronounced on 24 March 2006 should stand. It follows that each party should bear its own costs of the original application.

Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L was a case heard by the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The dispute involved a disagreement over costs between the parties, Wilkinson and Stevensam P/L. The case originated from a decision made by a trial judge, which was appealed by the appellants. The appellants argued that the original costs order made by the trial judge was uncertain, and they sought further submissions on the matter of costs. Additionally, the appellants sought the costs of their appeal from the respondents.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate application of the general rule regarding costs, specifically the principle that costs follow the event. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's original costs order was indeed uncertain and, if so, whether the appellants were entitled to the costs of their appeal. The appellants also sought clarification on the costs of their further submissions regarding the original costs order.

The court considered the principle that costs follow the event and the circumstances surrounding the original costs order. The court found that the original costs order was not uncertain and that the appellants were not entitled to the costs of their appeal. The court also determined that the appellants were not entitled to the costs of their further submissions on the matter of costs. Consequently, the formal orders as pronounced on 24 March 2006 were upheld, with each party bearing its own costs of the original application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 156
PARTIES:	PRISCILLA ROBERTA WILKINSON (plaintiff/respondent) v STEVENSAM PTY LTD ACN 091 891 235 (first defendant/first applicant) SAMANTHA ANN DICK and MARTIN LEONG (second defendant/second applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10045 of 2005 DC No 68 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil) - Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 24 March 2006 Further Order delivered 12 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 March 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and McMurdo J Judgment of the Court
FURTHER ORDER:	The formal orders as pronounced on 24 March 2006 should stand, each party bearing its own costs of the original application
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - where Court of Appeal allowed appeal from decision of learned trial judge - where appellants argued the original costs order made by the Court was uncertain and made further submissions on costs - where appellants sought the costs of their appeal
COUNSEL:	D O J North SC, with M T O'Sullivan, for the applicants J W Lee for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the applicants Keith Scott & Associates for the respondent