Woodman v Maher

[1999] QCA 233

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	99.233
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 6654 of 1998

Brisbane

[Maher v Woodman]

BETWEEN:

LINDSAY ALFRED MAHER

(Second Defendant) Applicant

AND:

FLORENCE MARGARET WOODMAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

MAHER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

(IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 009 535 013

(First Defendant)

McMurdo P
Pincus JA

Thomas JA

Judgment delivered 22 June 1999.

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

NEITHER PARTY HAS AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT. APPLICATIONS OF BOTH PARTIES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED. NO ORDER MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE COSTS OF EITHER APPLICATION.

appeal lies as of right - Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd (CA No 9640 of 1998, 22 December 1998), Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Morris (CA No 6503 of 1998, 20 April 1999) and EM Investments (Qld) Pty Ltd v Aldrick (CA No 2468 of 1999, 24 May 1999) discussed.

PROCEDURE - INFERIOR COURTS - QUEENSLAND - DISTRICT COURT - PRACTICE - COSTS - Rules 363-369 District Court Rules - nature and extent of jurisdiction of District Court to award costs otherwise than according to scale.

District Court Act 1967 (Qld) ss118(2), (3)
Rules of the District Court Rules 363, 363A
Australia Meat Holdings v Morris Appeal No 6503 of 1998, 20 April
1999
Colburt v Beard [1992] 2 Qd R 67
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR
472
EM Investments (Qld) Pty Ltd v Aldrick Appeal No 2468 of 1999, 24
May 1999
Schiliro v Peppercorn Child Care Centres Pty Ltd Appeal No 9640 of
1998, 22 December 1998
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions

Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306

Counsel:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf. Mr R Stenson for the respondent.
Solicitors:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf. Barry Beaverson & Stenson for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	21 April 1999.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No 6654 of 1998

Brisbane

Before McMurdo P
Pincus JA
Thomas JA

[Maher v Woodman]

BETWEEN:

LINDSAY ALFRED MAHER

(Second Defendant) Applicant

AND:

FLORENCE MARGARET WOODMAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

MAHER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

(In Liquidation) ACN 009 535 013

(First Defendant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McMURDO P

Judgment delivered 22 June 1999

1   I have had the benefit of reading and agree with the reasons for judgment of Thomas

JA and with the orders he proposes.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 6654 of 1998

Brisbane

Before McMurdo P
Pincus JA
Thomas JA

[Maher v Woodman]

BETWEEN:

LINDSAY ALFRED MAHER

(Second Defendant) Applicant

AND:

FLORENCE MARGARET WOODMAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

MAHER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

(IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 009 535 013

(First Defendant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS JA

Judgment delivered 22 June 1999

1. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Thomas JA and subject to…