Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Determined (QCA)

Leach v Leach[2007] QCA 315

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

 

PARTIES:

STEPHEN ALAN LEACH as personal representative of

the estate of IRENE CLARE LEACH

(first applicant/first respondent)

MARK FREDERICK LEACH as personal representative

of the estate of IRENE CLARE LEACH

(second applicant/second respondent)

v

JEFFERY FRANCIS LEACH

(respondent/appellant)

STEPHEN ALAN LEACH as personal representative of the estate of ALAN JOHN LEACH (applicant/respondent)

v

JEFFERY FRANCIS LEACH (respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 967 of 2007

SC No 246 of 2006

SC No 247 of 2006

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application to Strike Out – Further Order 

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 5 April 2007

Further Order delivered 28 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2007

JUDGES:

Keane and Holmes JJA and Douglas J

Judgment of the Court

FURTHER ORDER:

1. Assessment of costs pursuant to the orders of this Court of 5 April 2007 to proceed before the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns

2. Appellant to pay costs of application to be assessed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – whether assessment of costs of appeal and application should be heard by Registrar of Supreme Court at Cairns – whether Court should make order in respect of costs of present application

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

D P Morzone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Williams Graham Carman for the respondent

[1]  THE COURT:  On 5 April 2007, this Court (then constituted by Williams JA, Keane JA and Douglas J) struck out the appeals by Jeffery Leach against the orders of Jones J of 29 November 2006.[1]  In each appeal, this Court also ordered that Jeffery Leach pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and application assessed on an indemnity basis.

[2] The successful parties now seek an order that the assessment of the costs recoverable by them pursuant to that order be heard by the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns rather than in Brisbane.

[3] In support of that application, it is said that Cairns is the Registry closest to all parties so that considerations of convenience and the saving of expense favour granting the application.  The application is also supported by the consideration that the assessment of costs in the proceedings at first instance will occur before the Registrar in Cairns.  There is said to be considerable complexity in the matters so that it would be desirable that the costs assessment in each matter proceed before the same Registrar.

[4] Jeffery Leach is presently in custody at Lotus Glen Prison.  He has been afforded ample opportunity to make submissions in writing in response to the application.  He has not identified any prejudice to him which would ensue from granting the application.

[5] In these circumstances, we consider that we should grant the application for a change of venue for the assessment of the costs the subject of this Court's orders of 5 April 2007.

[6] A further order is sought that this Court make an order in respect of the costs incurred on this application by ordering that they be paid on the indemnity basis fixed at $1,071.50.

[7] This Court would be disposed to accede to this application were it not for two matters.  The first is that Jeffery Leach seems to oppose this course:  Jeffery Leach represents himself and is understandably at a disadvantage.  While that disadvantage is no reason why the costs assessment process should not proceed, it is a reason why he should not be denied the close review of the costs assessment in respect of this application which can be provided by assessment by the Registrar.  Secondly, the Registrar at Cairns will, in accordance with our order, be required to assess the costs in the related matters to which we have referred.  The applicants will suffer little prejudice if the Registrar at Cairns assesses the costs of this application as well; indeed, that is probably the more efficient course.

[8] Accordingly, we order that the assessment of costs pursuant to the orders of this Court of 5 April 2007 proceed before the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns.  We further order that the appellant pay the costs of this application to be assessed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Cairns.

Footnotes

[1] Leach (as personal representative of the estate of Alan John Leach) v Leach [2007] QCA 117; Leach & Leach (as personal representatives of the estate of Irene Clare Leach) [2007] QCA 118.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Leach & Leach (as personal representatives of the estate of Irene Clare Leach) v Leach; Leach (as personal representative of the estate of Alan John Leach) v Leach

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Leach v Leach

  • MNC:

    [2007] QCA 315

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    Keane JA, Holmes JA, Douglas J

  • Date:

    28 Sep 2007

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2006] QSC 41029 Nov 2006Applications to set aside caveats lodged against the granting of probate; basis for lodging caveat regarding I Leach estate entirely misconceived; in regards to A Leach, no caveatable interest shown and no reasonable prospects of establishing an interest; caveats set aside: Jones J.
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2007] QCA 11805 Apr 2007Appeal struck out with costs on the indemnity basis; no interest in estate demonstrated; appeal against order removing caveat against estate (SC246/07); appeal was always hopeless and should be struck out as an abuse of process: Williams and Keane JJA and Douglas J.
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2007] QCA 11705 Apr 2007Appeal struck out with costs on the indemnity basis; no interest in estate demonstrated; appeal against order removing caveat against estate (SC247/06); appeal was always hopeless and should be struck out as an abuse of process: Williams and Keane JJA and Douglas J.
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2007] QCA 31528 Sep 2007Further orders from 5 April 2007; successful parties seek order that costs assessment be dealt with in Cairns instead of Brisbane; application for change of venue granted: Keane and Holmes JJA and Douglas J.

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined (QCA)

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Leach v Leach [2007] QCA 117
1 citation
Leach v Leach [2007] QCA 118
1 citation

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.