MAV v ABA
[2007] QCA 380
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)
- MAV v ABA[2007] QCA 380
- Add to List
MAV v ABA[2007] QCA 380
MAV v ABA[2007] QCA 380
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | DC No 457 of 2005 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension of Time / General Civil Appeal – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 November 2007 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGES: | Jerrard JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made |
FURTHER ORDERS: | 1.The order of the Court pronounced on 13 April 2007 be varied by deleting – “4.The State of Queensland as intervener is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.” and substituting – “4.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis. 5.That the respondent be granted an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).” |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE – CORRECTION UNDER SLIP RULE – where unopposed appeal in respect of criminal compensation successful – where the respondent was granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) – where the State of Queensland was erroneously named as intervener instead of amicus curiae – where costs were awarded against the State of Queensland – whether there should be an amendment to the costs order Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 15 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 388, r 667 Queensland Pork P/L v Lott [2003] QCA 271; Appeal No 204 of 2003, 4 July 2003, considered R v Jones; ex parte Zaicov [2002] 2 Qd R 303; [2001] QCA 442, applied |
SOLICITORS: | Purcell Taylor for the appellant No appearance for the respondent C W Lowe for the Crown Solicitor as amicus curiae |
[1] JERRARD JA: I have had the advantage of readings the reasons of Jones J and agree with those reasons and the orders that His Honour proposes.
[2] CULLINANE J: I agree with the orders proposed by Jones J on the issue of costs in this matter.
[3] JONES J: On 20 July 2007 this Court ordered that the State of Queensland, as intervener, is to pay the appellant’s costs of appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
[4] By an application dated 22 October 2007, the State of Queensland drew the Court’s attention to the fact that it did not seek to intervene on the appeal but rather appeared as amicus curiae. See transcript at page 2 line 30. That being the case there was no basis upon which a cost order could be made against the State.
[5] The order was clearly made on the basis of the Court’s erroneous perception of the status of the State of Queensland and needs to be corrected. The error is of a kind which can appropriately be dealt with pursuant to r 388 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) which relevantly provides that the Court “on application by a party or on its own initiative, may at any time correct the mistake or error”. The error is of a kind which falls within the embrace of that rule. Queensland Pork P/L v Lott [2003] QCA 271.
[6] The applicant relies also upon r 667 of UCPR given the circumstances that on the hearing of the appeal the respondent did not appear to oppose and the appellant was successful and was entitled to an order for costs. R v Jones; ex parte Zaicov [2002] 2 Qd R 303 at para [4]. The appellant consents to the variation in the order as proposed by the applicant.
[7] In the circumstances the previous order must be set aside. The applicant has referred to examples where unopposed appeals in respect of criminal compensation have succeeded on a question of law, an indemnity costs certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld) have been granted.
[8] That, in my view, is the proper course to follow in this case.
[9] I would therefore order that the order of the Court pronounced on 13 April 2007 be varied by deleting –
“4.The State of Queensland as intervener is to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal assessed on the standard basis.”
and substituting –
“4.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
5.That the respondent be granted an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).”