XY v UV (No 2)

[2024] QSC 283

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

XY v UV (No 2) [2024] QSC 283

PARTIES:

XY

(applicant)

v
UV

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 14083 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Determined on the papers. 
Written submissions on costs filed by both parties on 8 November 2024.

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDER:

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – PARTIAL SUCCESS – where the applicant sought relief from producing documents in a pending arbitration to either the arbitrator or to the respondent on the basis that s 5 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) displaced the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s parliamentary privilege and public interest immunity claims – where the respondent also sought a permanent stay of proceedings if it were found that the Court’s jurisdiction had not been displaced – where the applicant’s application was dismissed on the basis that the Court’s inherent jurisdiction had not been displaced but that it was not appropriate to exercise the Court’s discretion to grant the relief sought by the applicant – where the respondent seeks that the applicant pay its costs – where the applicant argues that each party should bear their own costs in circumstances where the respondent failed on the issue of jurisdiction – whether the applicant ought to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings

Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25, followed
Todrell Pty Ltd v Finch [2008] 2 Qd R 95, cited
Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39, cited

COUNSEL:

J Horton KC with R McDermott for the applicant

W Lim (solicitor) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
Ashurst for the respondent

1. By its originating application dated 18 October 2024, the applicant sought an order that it be relieved from producing documents, to either the arbitrator or the respondent, in the pending arbitration between the parties.  On 25 October 2024, the respondent filed an application seeking that the proceeding be permanently stayed.

2. These applications raised two issues for determination:

   (a)whether s 5 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) (CAA), properly construed, has expressly or impliedly displaced the court’s inherent jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claims to parliamentary privilege or public interest immunity in circumstances where those claims are raised in an arbitration conducted pursuant to the CAA;

   (b)if the court’s jurisdiction has not been displaced, whether the court should exercise that jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claims or, as the respondent argued, otherwise dismiss or stay the proceeding.

3. On 1 November 2024, I gave judgment dismissing the originating application. The basis for that decision was that, although I concluded that s 5 of the CAA has not displaced the inherent…