Puryer v Webb
[2008] QCA 320
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)
- Puryer v Webb[2008] QCA 320
- Add to List
Puryer v Webb[2008] QCA 320
Puryer v Webb[2008] QCA 320
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | TERENCE ROBERT PURYER |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 7232 of 2006 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal - Further Order as to Costs |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered 22 August 2008 Further Order delivered 10 October 2008 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGES: | McMurdo P, Keane JA and Wilson J Judgment of the Court |
FURTHER ORDER: | The appellant to pay the respondent's costs in respect of the appeal fixed at $29,691.40 |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – RECOVERY OF COSTS – where the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis – where the respondent applies to the Court to have the costs of the appeal fixed pursuant to its power under r 687(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the respondent has provided evidence in affidavit form of its costs in relation to the appeal quantified by reference to the Supreme Court Scale of Costs – where the appellant disputes the quantification submitted by the respondent and applies for the question of costs to be assessed – whether in the circumstances it is appropriate for the Court to fix the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent in relation to the appeal at the amount claimed by the respondent Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 687(2)(c) Puryer v Webb & Ors [2008] QCA 246, related |
COUNSEL: | The appellant appeared on his own behalf D W Williams for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The appellant appeared on his own behalf P M Lee & Co for the respondent |
[1] THE COURT: On 22 August 2008, the Court gave judgment dismissing Mr Puryer's appeal.[1] The Court expressed the view that Mr Puryer should pay Ms Coombs' costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis, but left open the possibility of fixing the costs recoverable by Ms Coombs rather than ordering that they be assessed. The Court has power to fix the costs of the appeal pursuant to r 687(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) ("the UCPR").
[2] On behalf of Ms Coombs, the Court is asked to assess Ms Coombs' costs of the appeal at $29,691.40. The quantum of the costs so claimed is vouched by a schedule calculated by reference to Sch 1 of the Scale of Costs of the Supreme Court. The costs claimed include outlays.
[3] Mr Knight, Ms Coombs' solicitor, has sworn an affidavit deposing to his belief that these costs were reasonably incurred. A perusal of the schedule propounded on behalf of Ms Coombs does not give rise to scepticism or concern in this regard.
[4] Mr Puryer objects to the proposal that this Court fix the costs of the appeal; he proposes that the costs be assessed. Mr Puryer urges that there is no particular reason why this Court should assume responsibility for fixing the costs, and that the Court cannot be confident that the quantification put forward on behalf of Ms Coombs is reliable.
[5] Mr Puryer has written to Ms Coombs' solicitors demanding that they produce the documentation relating to the items claimed in the schedule of costs propounded by Ms Coombs. In his affidavit in opposition to this Court fixing the costs, Mr Puryer swears:
"In the absence of the documents and in particular the client agreements and receipts, there is in my submission no entitlement whatsoever to costs or outlays. I dispute that the sum of $29,691.40 is fair and reasonable for costs of the third respondent."
[6] Mr Puryer's demands indicate that the process of assessment of costs will be an expensive exercise, especially for Ms Coombs. Mr Puryer evidently intends to make the assessment of the costs he is obliged to pay Ms Coombs in respect of the unsuccessful appeal a prolonged and expensive process. Having regard to the relatively modest amount claimed on behalf of Ms Coombs, that is a prospect of grave concern to the Court.
[7] This Court held that Mr Puryer's appeal was pursued unreasonably by him. The attitude adopted by Mr Puryer in relation to the assessment of costs is, regrettably, of a piece with that reflected in his unreasonable pursuit of the appeal. This Court should be astute to ensure that the process of assessment of costs should not be allowed to be used as an engine of oppression or vexation.
[8] So far as the reliability of the quantification of the costs is concerned, there is no good reason why this Court should not be prepared to act upon the detailed costing provided by Ms Coombs' solicitors.
Order
[9] This Court fixes the costs payable by Mr Puryer to Ms Coombs in respect of the appeal at $29,691.40.
Footnotes
[1] Puryer v Webb & Ors [2008] QCA 246.