Wilkinson v Stevensam P/L

[2006] QCA 156

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

1. 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.

1. 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.

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

1. 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.

1. 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.