Barristers' Board v Young
[2002] QCA 85
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)
- Barristers' Board v Young[2002] QCA 85
- Add to List
Barristers' Board v Young[2002] QCA 85
Barristers' Board v Young[2002] QCA 85
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Disciplinary Proceedings – Further Order |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered 7 December 2001 Further Order delivered 21 March 2002 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers. |
JUDGES: | de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J Further Order of the Court |
FURTHER ORDER: | The respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed. |
CATCHWORDS: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – CONDUCT OF PARTIES – applicant pursued an order that the respondent pay its costs following judgment – whether the respondent approached the matter unreasonably – whether the order would impose an intolerable financial burden and whether, if an order were imposed, it should be limited in amount – although financial burden is regrettable, there is no reason to depart from the usual course that the applicant’s costs are to be paid by the respondent. |
COUNSEL: | JK Bond SC, with DA Kelly, for the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | Hemming & Hart for the applicant Bernard Bradley & Associates for the respondent |
[1] THE COURT: Following the delivery on 7 December 2001 of the judgment of the court, which did not deal with the issue of costs, the applicant pursued an order that the respondent pay its costs, an order for costs having been sought in the application filed on 25 September 2001.
[2] The applicant’s contention is that costs should in the ordinary way follow the event, the respondent having at all stages resisted the order ultimately made, being the order sought by the applicant.
[3] We have received written submissions in relation to costs from the respondent. Those submissions contend, essentially, that the respondent did not approach the matter unreasonably, and that a costs order would impose an intolerable financial burden upon her. Further, if a costs order is to be made, the respondent asks that it be limited in amount.
[4] The financial burden which the respondent will suffer is certainly regrettable, but neither that consequence nor the other matters upon which the respondent relies warrants departure from the usual position, that the costs of the applicant be paid by the respondent.
[5] There will be an order that the respondent pays the applicant’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed.