Callide Power Management Pty Ltd v Callide Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd
[2008] QCA 216
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)
- Callide Power Management Pty Ltd v Callide Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd[2008] QCA 216
- Add to List
Callide Power Management Pty Ltd v Callide Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd[2008] QCA 216
Callide Power Management Pty Ltd v Callide Coalfields (Sales) Pty Ltd[2008] QCA 216
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | CALLIDE POWER MANAGEMENT PTY. LIMITED |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 8437 of 2007 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered 11 July 2008 Further Order delivered 1 August 2008 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGES: | Keane and Muir JJA and Mackenzie AJA Judgment of the Court |
FURTHER ORDER: | 1. Respondent's application for indemnity costs dismissed 2. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – where the appellant rejected an earlier offer by the respondent to withdraw its appeal on the ground that each party bear its own costs as so far incurred – where the appellant was ultimately unsuccessful on appeal – whether the appellant acted unreasonably in pursuing the appeal – whether an order for indemnity costs in favour of the respondent ought to be made Greenhalgh v Bacas Training Limited & Ors [2007] QCA 365, distinguished |
COUNSEL: | R W Gotterson QC for the appellant D B Fraser QC, with P W Telford, for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Minter Ellison for the appellant BCI Duells Lawyers for the respondent |
[1] THE COURT: On 11 July 2008 the substantive appeal in this matter was dismissed. On that date the respondent was given leave, pursuant to Practice Direction 1 of 2005, to make submissions in relation to the orders for costs which should be made.
[2] The respondent submits that it should recover its costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis having regard to its written offer to the appellant dated 20 March 2008 whereby it invited the appellant to withdraw its appeal on the footing that the respondent would bear its own costs of the appeal so far incurred. In this regard, the respondent relies upon the decision of this Court in Greenhalgh v Bacas Training Limited & Ors.[1]
[3] The appellant resists the respondent's application contending that the appellant did not act so unreasonably or imprudently in declining the respondent's offer as to warrant an order for costs on the indemnity basis. The appellant argues that Greenhalgh v Bacas Training Limited & Ors is distinguishable in that the unsuccessful party in that case was an applicant for leave to appeal and its refusal of an offer to withdraw its application free of any liability for costs was plainly unreasonable in the light of its relatively precarious position as a mere applicant for leave to appeal.
[4] We consider that the appellant's submission should be accepted. In this case the appeal concerned the proper interpretation of a lengthy and complex commercial document. The position advanced by the appellant on the appeal was not so bereft of prospects of success that it can be said that the appellant acted unreasonably in pursuing the appeal which was available to it as of right.
[5] Accordingly, we would reject the respondent's application.
[6] We order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
Footnotes
[1] [2007] QCA 365.