Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas - [2007] QDC 133

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas [2007] QDC 133

PARTIES:

KWAI MYIM WOO

and

LOP SOON WONG

(Plaintiffs)

v

CHRISTOPHER DAVID PRIOR

and

KATHERINE MARIE THOMAS

(Defendants)

FILE NO/S:

714/05

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Costs re Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:

19 April, 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

29 March 2007

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

That the plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

Contract for sale and purchase of property – costs

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Pt 5 Ch 9 and rr 360, 361, 361(1) and 361(2).

Cases cited:
Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas [2006] QDC 313

Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Ors v Fosters Brewing Group Ltd & Ors and Coopers and Lybrand & Ors [2003] QSC 299
Rathie v ING Life Ltd [2004] QSC 146

COUNSEL:

Mr I Richardson (solicitor) for the plaintiffs

Mr A Delaney (solicitor) for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

KRG Law Solicitors for the plaintiffs

Delaneys Lawyers Solicitors for the defendants

Introduction

This court delivered its decision in Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas on 22 December 2006 and ordered that the sum of $10,000 (plus interest) paid into court from the Bryan B. Russell Trust Account be paid out to the defendants, or at their direction. That order represented “success” in respect of the defendants’ application filed on 27 September 2006[1], amounting in practical terms to a belated “counterclaim”. The originating claim by the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and the return of the deposit moneys to the plaintiff. In Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas [2006] QDC 313 Robin QC DCJ ordered that the proceeding, originally commenced as a claim, should proceed as an application, with the hearing to proceed on 28 September 2006. The “belated counterclaim” (as I have described it) was therefore filed just a day before the hearing of this matter.
[1]The substantive application was heard on 28 September, 2006.

Offers to Settle

The defendants made two formal offers pursuant to Pt 5 Ch 9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”) on 3 May 2005 and 25 January 2006 respectively. There is no dispute that the defendants obtained a judgment more favourable than either of their offers to settle.

The defendants claim that the issue of costs should be dealt pursuant to UCPR r.360 (costs if offer to settle by plaintiff) and accordingly, the defendants having been successful, it is submitted that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to these proceedings on an indemnity basis.

However, the difficulty with that submission is that on any view of the proceedings, the offers to settle were not made by a “plaintiff” but were made by a “defendant”, who did not obtain the status of a “plaintiff” by counterclaim until (at the earliest) 27 September 2006 (the day before hearing). In those circumstances, it is my view that UCPR r.360 does…

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.

Continue reading Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas

Details

AGLC: Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas [2007] QDC 133
Case: [2007] QDC 133
Decision Date: 19 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woo and Wong, acting as the plaintiffs, initiated legal proceedings against Prior and Thomas, the defendants, regarding a dispute connected to the sale and purchase of a property. The matter was heard and determined in a court of relevant jurisdiction. The primary focus of the case centred on the interpretation of the contract between the parties and the associated costs incurred during the litigation process.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve encompassed the interpretation of the terms and conditions outlined in the contract for the sale and purchase of the property. Specifically, the court had to determine whether there were any breaches of contract by either party and the extent of any damages that may have resulted from such breaches. Furthermore, the court was required to examine the reasonableness of the costs claimed by the defendants and whether they were properly incurred during the course of the litigation.

The court meticulously analysed the contract between the parties and the relevant evidence presented. The court found that the plaintiffs were liable for the defendants' costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis. The court determined that the defendants had acted reasonably and in good faith throughout the litigation process and had incurred the claimed costs as a direct result of the plaintiffs' actions. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendants, ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the aforementioned costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas [2007] QDC 133
PARTIES:	KWAI MYIM WOO and LOP SOON WONG (Plaintiffs) v CHRISTOPHER DAVID PRIOR and KATHERINE MARIE THOMAS (Defendants)
FILE NO/S:	714/05
DIVISION:	Civil jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Costs re Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON:	19 April, 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	29 March 2007
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	That the plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of and incidental to the proceedings on a standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	Contract for sale and purchase of property – costs Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Pt 5 Ch 9 and rr 360, 361, 361(1) and 361(2). Cases cited: Woo & Wong v Prior & Thomas [2006] QDC 313 Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Ors v Fosters Brewing Group Ltd & Ors and Coopers and Lybrand & Ors [2003] QSC 299 Rathie v ING Life Ltd [2004] QSC 146
COUNSEL:	Mr I Richardson (solicitor) for the plaintiffs Mr A Delaney (solicitor) for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	KRG Law Solicitors for the plaintiffs Delaneys Lawyers Solicitors for the defendants