Castro v Hillery
[2002] QCA 428
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)
- Castro v Hillery[2002] QCA 428
- Add to List
Castro v Hillery[2002] QCA 428
Castro v Hillery[2002] QCA 428
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered on 20 September 2002 Further Order delivered 18 October 2002 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 1 August 2002 |
JUDGES: | McMurdo P, Williams JA and Wilson J Judgment of the Court |
FURTHER ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – OTHER CASES – discontinuance or abandonment – where notice of appeal contained 14 grounds of appeal, nine of which were abandoned the evening before the appeal – where appellants successful on appeal on the issues of future economic loss and costs – whether appellants should pay the respondent’s costs thrown away by the abandonment of the nine grounds of appeal and, if so, on what basis |
COUNSEL: | M Grant-Taylor SC for the appellants J D Griffin QC, with A J Williams, for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Quinlan Miller & Treston for the appellants Conroy & Conroy for the respondent |
[1] THE COURT: When judgment on the appeal was delivered on 20 September 2002, the Court allowed the parties time within which to make written submissions with respect to costs thrown away by the late abandonment of a number of grounds of appeal.
[2] The notice of appeal contained 14 grounds of appeal. The evening before the hearing of the appeal the appellants informed the respondent that they would abandon nine of them. The abandoned grounds related to general damages, past gratuitous care, the charge out rate for past gratuitous care, future gratuitous care, the charge out rate for future gratuitous care, the commercial cost of future care, the failure to apply "future possibility/probability" principles to the future care award, past and future care for the respondent's daughter and future speech therapy expenses. The remaining five grounds related in substance to three issues only - contributory negligence, future economic loss and costs (whether the trial judge erred in awarding the respondent costs on the indemnity basis).
[3] The appellants succeeded on the issues of future economic loss and costs.
[4] The costs of the abandoned issues should be paid by the appellants, but the circumstances do not warrant an order that they be assessed on the indemnity basis.
[5] We would make the following orders:
(i) that the order for costs made on 20 September 2002 be vacated;
(ii) that the respondent pay the appellants' costs of and incidental to the appeal, other than the costs relating to grounds 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 in the notice of appeal, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis;
(iii) that the appellants pay the respondent's costs thrown away by the abandonment of grounds 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 in the notice of appeal, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis.