Pazese Pty Ltd v Sciacca and Shaw
[1999] QCA 455
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Pazese Pty Ltd v Sciacca and Shaw[1999] QCA 455
- Add to List
Pazese Pty Ltd v Sciacca and Shaw[1999] QCA 455
Pazese Pty Ltd v Sciacca and Shaw[1999] QCA 455
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Pazese Pty Ltd v Sciacca and Shaw [1999] QCA 455 |
PARTIES: | PAZESE PTY LTD ACN 010 778 505 (Plaintiff/Respondent) and SCIACCA AND SHAW (a firm) (Defendant/Appellant) |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 11977 of 1998 SC Writ No 7 of 1994 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment on 5 November 1999 Further Order of the court on 10 December 1999 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 6 August 1999 |
JUDGES: | McPherson JA, Thomas JA, Helman J |
FURTHER ORDER: | The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the action including reserved costs on the District Court scale appropriate to the amount recovered. The respondent pay one half of the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed. |
COUNSEL: | Mr P McMurdo QC for the appellant Mr C Carrigan for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Miller Harris & Co for the appellant Gayler Cleland Towne for the respondent
|
- McPHERSON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Thomas JA and Helman J for disposing of the costs of the appeal and of the action.
- THOMAS JA & HELMAN J: There were unsatisfactory features in the presentation of the case below, including failure to refer the court to the relevant authority of Kizbeau. This was a dominant factor in the result miscarrying. It is not a case where fault on the part of the court or the system requires the appeal costs fund to be held responsible for correcting the situation.
- As each party contributed to the unsatisfactory result below and to the corresponding need for appeal, there should be some limitation of costs of the appeal. We would therefore propose the following orders:
- The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action including reserved costs on the District Court scale appropriate to the amount recovered.
- The respondent pay one half of the appellant's costs of the appeal to be assessed.