Knight v Kluver
[2002] QCA 1
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
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Knight v Kluver[2002] QCA 1
- Add to List
Knight v Kluver[2002] QCA 1
Knight v Kluver[2002] QCA 1
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | |
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil) – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered on 27 June 2001 Further Order delivered on 1 February 2002 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 27 June 2001 |
JUDGES: | Davies, Thomas and Williams JJA Further Order of the Court |
FURTHER ORDER: | That the application for an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 is refused. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL COSTS FUND – POWER TO GRANT INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE – WHEN REFUSED – where appeal allowed upon an error of law – where unsuccessful respondent refused an indemnity certificate Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) |
COUNSEL: | SS Couper QC for the appellant S Di Carlo for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: |
[1] THE COURT: Judgment in this matter was handed down on 27 June 2001. By letter dated 10 January 2002 the solicitors for the unsuccessful respondent have applied for an Indemnity Certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
[2] As the reasons for judgment indicate, the solicitors for the respondent sought non-party discovery prematurely. When the recipient of that notice, for good reason, refused to comply with it those solicitors applied to the District Court for an order. An order was made in accordance with that application.
[3] This Court held that the District Court judge erred in law in granting the application – it was still premature, the statement of claim not having been served on the defendant.
[4] The error was clearly that of the solicitors for the respondent. They initiated the proceeding prematurely and when that was drawn to their attention persisted, in breach of the UCPR, by applying for an order. The fact that the decision of the District Court judge compounded their error does not, in our view, entitle the respondent to an Indemnity Certificate.
[5] The application for an Indemnity Certificate should be refused.