Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Welch v Tabhand Pty Ltd

 

[2003] QSC 238

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JONES J

Claim No 160 of 2003

JOHN KEVIN WELCH AND MEGAN MAY WELCH

Plaintiffs

and

 

TABHAND PTY LTD (ACN 010 297 168)

First Defendant

and

 

TERRY PLOS CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 010 678 038)

Second Defendant

and

 

TERENCE WILLIAM CONLAN

Third Defendant

CAIRNS

DATE 14/07/2003

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for particulars of the statement of claim made by the defendant. The particulars have, since the institution of the application, been provided but there remains an argument as to whether the successful applicant is entitled to costs of the application.

The background to this appears to be that the defendants' solicitors sought particulars before the filing of the defendants' defence but was required by the plaintiffs' solicitors to file the defence without those particulars having been given.

The request was renewed at a later time in a letter dated the 9th of May 2003 which made reference to the application of rule 444 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. That letter only allowed a period of seven days for the delivery of those particulars and they were not delivered within that time nor were they delivered before the 30th of May 2003 when this application was filed.

The plaintiffs' solicitors did seek some indulgence of being given five days' notice before the filing of the application and that indulgence was not granted. That is not a matter upon which I would speculate but the fact that similar concessions were not made about the delay in the filing of the defence is a matter to be taken into account.

In all the circumstances the application was properly made. The fact that the particulars have been provided illustrates its necessity. The fact that there has been no consequential amended defence does not impact on the question of costs and the need for making the application in my view.

I will order that the plaintiffs/respondents pay the applicants/defendants' costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    John Kevin Welch v Tabhand Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Welch v Tabhand Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2003] QSC 238

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Jones J

  • Date:

    14 Jul 2003

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status