Williams v Stone Homes P/L (No. 2) - [2014] QDC 81

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Stone Homes P/L & Anor (No. 2) [2014] QDC 81

PARTIES:

VICKIE WILLIAMS and MARK WILLIAMS
(plaintiffs)

v

STONE HOMES PTY LTD (ACN 115 467 439)
(defendant)

and

ACAME PTY LTD (ABN 28 002 465 072)
(third party)

FILE NO:

676/12

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Costs Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS:

It is ordered that:

1. The third party pay to the defendant 75% of the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding as assessed.

2. There be no order as to costs of the third party claim.

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

Costs - third party claim - offer by third party concerning plaintiffs’ claim - where significant input by third party in defending plaintiffs’ claim - where third party primarily liable in third party claim

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 355, r 356, r 357, r 361, r 361(1), r 361(1)(a), r 361(4), r 364, r 364(3), r 364(3)(a), r 364(3)(b), r 681, r 684, r 693(1), r 697(2), r 698

Civil Proceedings Act 2011, s 53(1)

Darveniza v Darveniza & Drakos (No 2) [2014] QSC 49

J & D Rigging P/L v Agripower Aust Ltd & Ors [2014] QCA 23

Turkmani v Visvalingam (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 279

COUNSEL:

Self-representation by the plaintiffs

G Coveney for the defendant

B Codd for the third party

SOLICITORS:

Graham Isles for the defendant

Norton Rose for the third party

Introduction

On 1 April 2014, besides giving judgments in this proceeding, I made orders as to the payment of the plaintiffs’ costs and gave both the defendant and the third party leave to file, and serve, submissions on what orders, including orders as to costs, should be made in accordance with the Reasons then given.

Both the defendant and the third party have made such submissions, in a timely way.

Defendant’s submissions

The orders, as to costs, that the defendant seeks are that:

(a) the third party contribute 100% of the plaintiffs’ costs payable by the defendant;

(b) the third party pay the defendant’s costs, as agreed or assessed; and

(c) the third party bear its own costs.

But the defendant also proposed alternative orders. They were that:

(a) the third party contribute 75% of the plaintiffs’ costs payable by the defendant;

(b) the third party pay 75% of the defendant’s costs, as agreed or assessed; and

(c) the third party bear its own costs.

The basis of these submissions is that it would lead “to an unfair result” should the third party not be ordered to pay, essentially, all the defendant’s costs. This is contended to flow from the assertion that the plaintiffs’ loss arises from plans for the plaintiffs’ kit home (sold to it by the defendant) being unsuitable (because of engineering reasons sheeted home to the third party), in circumstances where the third party executed a Compliance Certificate for Building Design or Specification…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Williams v Stone Homes P/L (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QDC 81
Decision Date: 16 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Stone Homes P/L (No. 2) involved a dispute concerning a third-party claim for costs. Williams had brought a claim against Stone Homes P/L, and a third party intervened in the proceedings, contributing significantly to the defence against Williams’ claim. Subsequently, the third party initiated a claim against Stone Homes P/L for costs associated with the defence of the initial claim. The court was tasked with determining whether the third party was entitled to recover costs from Stone Homes P/L and, if so, to what extent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the third party could claim costs from Stone Homes P/L, given the significant contribution made by the third party in defending against Williams' claim. The court also had to consider whether Stone Homes P/L had an entitlement to costs against the third party, and if so, the quantum of those costs. This required an examination of the relevant provisions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 and the Civil Proceedings Act 2011.

The court held that the third party was entitled to recover costs from Stone Homes P/L, as the third party had made a substantial contribution to the defence of the initial claim. The court noted that the third party was primarily liable in the third-party claim, which justified the recovery of costs. The court found that the third party's efforts were significant enough to warrant reimbursement. The court also ruled that Stone Homes P/L was not entitled to costs against the third party, as the third party's involvement was justified and necessary. The court awarded costs to the third party, but allowed for adjustments to account for the overlap in legal representation.

The court ordered that Stone Homes P/L pay the third party the costs associated with the defence of the initial claim, subject to certain adjustments for overlapping legal representation. The specific quantum of costs was determined based on the contributions made by the third party and the necessity of their involvement.

Orders