DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Workcover Queensland v Wallaby Group Limited & Anor [2020] QDC 188
PARTIES:
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(Plaintiff)
v
WALLABY GRIP LIMITED
(First Defendant)
AND
WALLABY GRIP (BAE) PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
(Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
437 of 2019
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
12 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
JUDGE:
Richards DCJ
ORDER:
1. Plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of the plaintiff’s application.
2. Defendants pay the plaintiffs costs of the defendants’ application.
3. Costs to be assessed unless otherwise agreed.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE– CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS– COSTS– GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT– where the primary purpose of awarding costs to the successful party is to indemnify them against expenses that may not have been incurred otherwise - where costs can be awarded in relation to a particular question or part of a proceeding or in a percentage basis – where there was an application by the plaintiff to strike out parts of the statement of claim of the first and second defendants – where the plaintiff was unsuccessful in the application – where the plaintiff is to pay the defendants cost of the application
PROCEDURE– CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS– COSTS– GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT– where the first and second defendants’ made an application to set aside the deemed admissions to the notice to admit facts – where the defendants solicitors failed to act in timely fashion in relation to the notice to admit facts – where the defendants had to seek the court’s indulgence to set aside the notice to admit facts – where the plaintiff was successful in the application - where it was reasonable for the plaintiff to oppose the application – where the defendants are to pay the cost of the plaintiffs application
Legislation
r 681, r 684 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
Cases
Aion Corporation Pty Ltd v Yolanda Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 216
Bucknell v Robins [2004] QCA 474
Folwell and Mayer No 2 [2020] QSC 211
Interchase Corporation Limited (In liq) v Grosvenor Hill (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] 1 Qd R 26
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72
COUNSEL: Mr K Holyoak for the plaintiff
Mr G Diehm QC for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS:
BT Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Zambra Legal for the First and Second Defendants
Introduction
On 7 July 2020, judgement was delivered in relation to applications by both parties. These reasons deal with the costs of those applications.
The general rule about costs is found in r 681 of the UCPR;
“681General rule about costs
(1)Costs of a proceeding, including an application in a proceeding, are in the discretion of the court but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise.”
There must be special or exceptional circumstances to depart from the general rule.[1]
[1]Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] 193 CLR 72 at 96 per McHugh J.
Where there are…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Workcover Queensland v Wallaby Group Limited 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] QDC 188
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address involved the allocation of costs in the context of procedural applications made by both parties. The plaintiff had sought to strike out certain parts of the statement of claim of the first and second defendants, but this application was unsuccessful. Conversely, the plaintiff was successful in an application to set aside deemed admissions to a notice to admit facts, an application which the defendants had sought to have set aside. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs related to these applications, considering the outcomes and the reasonableness of the parties’ actions.
The court reasoned that the general principle of costs following the event means that the unsuccessful party in a proceeding typically bears the costs of the successful party. However, the court also recognised that costs can be awarded in relation to particular questions or parts of a proceeding, or on a percentage basis. In this case, the court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to oppose the defendants’ application to set aside the deemed admissions, given the defendants' delay in responding to the notice to admit facts. Conversely, the court found that the plaintiff's application to strike out parts of the statement of claim was unsuccessful, and thus the plaintiff should bear the costs of that application. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the unsuccessful application, and that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the successful application. The costs were to be assessed unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Plaintiffs pay the defendants costs of the plaintiff’s application.
2. Defendants pay the plaintiffs costs of the defendants’ application.
3. Costs to be assessed unless otherwise agreed.
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.