Willett v Futcher
[2004] QCA 64
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) - Appeal Determined (HCA)
- Willett v Futcher[2004] QCA 64
- Add to List
Willett v Futcher[2004] QCA 64
Willett v Futcher[2004] QCA 64
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Willett & Anor v Futcher [2004] QCA 64 |
PARTIES: | DEBORAH ANN WILLETT |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 2709 of 2003 SC No 4579 of 1980 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Personal Injury - Quantum Only - Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment of the Court delivered 20 February 2004 Further Order delivered 19 March 2004 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 7 October 2003 |
JUDGES: | Davies JA, Jones and Holmes JJ |
FURTHER | Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION - GENERALLY - where appeal was of general importance - whether the "general public importance" of the appeal justified a departure from the general cost rule |
COUNSEL: | T Matthews for the appellant D B Fraser QC, with M P Kent, for the respondent D C Rangiah for the Public Advocate |
SOLICITORS: | Quinlan Miller & Treston for the appellant McInnes Wilson for the respondent |
- DAVIES JA: I agree with the costs order proposed by Jones J for the reasons he gives.
- JONES J: The appellant unsuccessfully appealed against the quantum of the allowance for fund management which had been assessed as part of her damages. The appellant now submits that despite this outcome she should not pay the respondent's costs on appeal. The appellant does so on the grounds that the question arising on appeal was one of general importance, that the decision provided a clarification of the scope of the services to be considered when making such an assessment, such scope not having been authoritatively determined in earlier decisions.
- The appellant had sought a very substantial increase in the allowance which, had the argument succeeded, would have been well above the usual range of such assessment. Moreover, the appeal was determined largely on arguments which had been rehearsed of the court of first instance.
- I do not consider that the fact that the appeal involved a question of "general public importance" gives such support to the application. As was observed in Hollier v Australian Maritime Safety Authority[1] "much litigation has a public interest going beyond the interests of the parties. But this feature is inherent in common law litigation and provides no ground for departure from the usual rule as to costs".
- The circumstances in this case do not justify a departure from the normal rule that costs should follow the event.
- I would order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
- HOLMES J: I agree with the reasoning of Jones J in respect to costs and with the order he proposes.
Footnotes
[1] (1998) Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) VG 116/1998