Worchild v Petersen

[2008] QCA 26

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26

PARTIES:

ANDREW WORCHILD
(appellant/applicant)
v
MARK TROY PETERSEN
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 185 of 2007
DC No 593 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

22 February 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mackenzie AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.   Application for leave refused

2.   Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – COSTS ORDERS – where District Court allowed applicant’s appeal against conviction – where order for costs limited to out-of-pocket expenses – where applicant also sought professional costs – whether applicant should be granted leave to appeal under s 118(3) District Court Act 1967 (Qld) on the issue of costs

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where District Court Judge made discretionary order as to costs – whether that discretionary order should be set aside

PROCEDURE – COSTS – TAXATION – PARTICULAR ITEMS – SOLICITOR’S PROFIT COSTS – SOLICITOR PARTY – where applicant previously held a Restricted Employee Practising Certificate under the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) – where applicant did not renew his Practising Certificate – where applicant did not hold a Practising Certificate when he represented himself before the Magistrates Court and District Court - whether the District Court Judge erred in refusing to allow professional costs

District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld)
Queensland Law Society Act 1952 (Qld)

A & D Douglas Pty Ltd v Lawyers Private Mortgages Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 690, cited
Atlas Corporation Pty Ltd v Kalyk [2001] NSWCA 10, cited
Cachia v Haynes (1994) 179 CLR 403; [1994] HCA 14, considered
Dobree v Hoffman (1996) 18 WAR 36, cited
Guss v Veenhuizen (No 2) (1976) 136 CLR 47; [1976] HCA 57, applied
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
Labaj v Brown & Anor [2005] QCA 54, cited
Lloyd v Hill [2004] NSWSC 652, considered
McIlraith v Ilkin& Anor (Costs) [2007] NSWSC 1052, followed
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294, cited
Rigney v Littlehales & Ors [2005] QCA 252, cited
Winn v Garland Hawthorn Brahe(a firm) (Ruling No 1) [2007] VSC 360, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G P Sammon for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Law for the respondent

1. MURDO P: McThe application for leave to appeal should be refused with costs for the…