Woolworths v. Hidassy - [2008] QDC 43

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Woolworths v Hidassy [2008] QDC 43
PARTIES:	WOOLWORTHS LIMITED (Appellant) AND PAUL LESLIE HIDASSY (Respondent)
FILE NOS:	39/08
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore District Court
DELIVERED ON:	19.3.2008
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	14.03.2008
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the order for costs; respondent to pay appellants costs of appeal assessed on standard basis. Indemnity certificate granted to respondent pursuant to s.15(3) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, where award of damages was less than $30,000 and below the mandatory final offer of the respondent and above that of the appellant; whether s.56(2) constitutes a code in relation to awarding costs; whether court retains general discretion to award costs; relevance of conduct of proceedings under the Act by the parties. Legislation: District Court Act 1976 Magistrates Courts Act 1921 Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 1994 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 Cases Considered: Aldrich v E.M. Investments (Qld) Pty Ltd [2000] 2 Qd R 346 Amos v Brisbane City Council (2005) 433 Graham v Roberts (1956) St. R. Qd 459 Kenny & Anor v Eyears & Anor [2004] QSC 059 North Mossman Motors v Petrus (1987) QDC 295 Thompson v Franko (2004) QDC 476 Woodman v Maher [2001] 1 Qd R 106
COUNSEL:	Mr. R Whiteford for the appellant Mr. P Hackett for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	DLA Phillips Fox for the appellant Schultz Toomey O’Brien Lawyers for the respondent

This is an application for leave to appeal by Woolworths Limited against a costs order made against it on 23.1.2008 by his Honour Magistrate Killeen. The point raised on the appeal is a discrete one: does s.56(2)(a) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (“PIPA”) allow for any residual discretion to award costs when an amount of damages awarded is less than (the respondent plaintiff’s) mandatory final offer but more than that of (the defendant applicant).

Background Facts

Mr. Hidassy was injured when he fell at the Woolworths supermarket at Kawana on 25.5.05. He delivered a Notice of Claim to Woolworths pursuant to the PIPA on 10.7.05.

The compulsory conference required by s.36 PIPA occurred on 24 October 2006. At the conference Woolworths admitted liability, and pursuant to s.39 mandatory final offers were exchanged at the conference. The respondent’s offer was $12,000 and Woolworths offered $1.00. Mr. Hidassy then commenced proceedings in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court and a trial was held before Magistrate Killeen on 22 November 2007. On 23 January 2008, he gave judgment for Mr. Hidassy in the sum of $2,859.55 and invited submissions as to costs. At that time, Mr. Rafty who had acted for Mr. Hidassy throughout, handed up a written submission the details of which I will return to later. Woolworths were represented by a town agent who submitted that s.56 of the PIPA did not give the Court power to award costs. He also applied for an adjournment to enable…

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 Woolworths v. Hidassy 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: [2008] QDC 43
Decision Date: 19 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Woolworths v. Hidassy, the dispute arose from a personal injury claim where the respondent, Hidassy, sued Woolworths for damages following an incident. The case was adjudicated in the Queensland District Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, specifically section 56(2), constituted a code in relation to awarding costs, thereby limiting the court's general discretion. This was further complicated by the fact that the award of damages was below the mandatory final offer of Woolworths and above that of Hidassy.

The court examined the legislative framework provided by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, including section 56(2), which outlines the process for awarding costs in personal injury cases. The court also considered relevant case law, including Aldrich v E.M. Investments (Qld) Pty Ltd, Woodman v Maher, and North Mossman Motors v Petrus, which provided guidance on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the exercise of discretion in awarding costs. The court needed to determine whether the statutory scheme effectively restricted judicial discretion or if the court retained the general power to award costs as per traditional common law principles.

The court concluded that section 56(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 did not constitute a code that completely foreclosed the court's general discretion to award costs. The court held that while the Act provides a framework for assessing costs, it does not entirely exclude the traditional principles of discretion that courts exercise in awarding costs. Therefore, the court found that it retained the authority to award costs in a manner consistent with the statutory provisions and the conduct of the proceedings. The appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the order for costs, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs of appeal assessed on a standard basis. An indemnity certificate was also granted to the respondent under section 15(3) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the order for costs; respondent to pay appellants costs of appeal assessed on standard basis. Indemnity certificate granted to respondent pursuant to s.15(3) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.

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.