Peden Pty Ltd v Bortolazzo
[2006] QCA 405
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
- Peden Pty Ltd v Bortolazzo[2006] QCA 405
- Add to List
Peden Pty Ltd v Bortolazzo[2006] QCA 405
Peden Pty Ltd v Bortolazzo[2006] QCA 405
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil) - Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered 15 September 2006 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 10 May 2006 |
JUDGES: | McMurdo P, White and Philippides JJ Further Order of the Court |
ORDER: | Application for indemnity certificate refused |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - APPEAL COSTS FUND - POWER TO GRANT INDEMNITY CERTIFICATE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL - whether this is an appropriate case to grant an indemnity certificate Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 15(1) Aussie Traveller Pty Ltd v Marklea Pty Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 1, considered |
COUNSEL: | M A Jonsson for the applicant/appellant E J Morzone for the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Bennett & Philp, town agents for Vince Martin & Co (Innisfail) for the applicant/appellant Vandeleur & Todd for the respondents |
[1] THE COURT: This Court delivered its judgment in this matter on 15 September 2006. The application for leave to appeal was granted, the appeal allowed, the decision of the District Court set aside and instead it was ordered that the District Court Appeal from the decision of the Magistrates Court at Innisfail on 5 July 2005 be dismissed with costs to be assessed. The respondents were then given leave to provide written submissions as to their foreshadowed application for an indemnity certificate under s 15(1) Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).
[2] Section 15(1) gives this Court an unfettered discretion to grant the respondents an indemnity certificate in respect of an appeal to this Court which succeeds on a question of law.
[3] The respondents rightly submit that the appeal succeeded on a question of law, namely whether the appellant lessor was liable in nuisance to her lessee's neighbour, who was not a lessee of the appellant, by allowing the appellant's lessee who created a nuisance to remain in possession.
[4] The respondents further contend that this was an important legal issue which clarified and limited the boundaries of this Court's earlier decision in Aussie Traveller Pty Ltd v Marklea Pty Ltd.[1] The respondents submit that those circumstances make this an appropriate case in which to grant it an indemnity certificate.
[5] This Court's previously delivered reasons for judgment in this appeal demonstrate that the law applicable to the unchallenged facts here was well settled. The appellant lessor was not liable to her lessee's neighbour, who was not a lessee of the appellant, for a nuisance created by the appellant's lessee, unless the lessor authorized the nuisance either expressly or the nuisance was certain to result from the purposes for which the property was let: Smith v Scott,[2] Hussain v Lancaster City Council[3] and Wilkie v Blacktown City Council.[4] The respondents' contrary submissions to the District Court and to this Court proposed a novel development of the law and misconstrued the effect of Aussie Traveller. We are not satisfied that in these circumstances the respondents should have their costs paid effectively from public funds. We would refuse the respondents' application for an indemnity certificate for their costs of the appeal.
Order