Williamson v JIA Holdings Pty Ltd
[2012] QCA 3
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)
- Williamson v JIA Holdings Pty Ltd[2012] QCA 3
- Add to List
Williamson v JIA Holdings Pty Ltd[2012] QCA 3
Williamson v JIA Holdings Pty Ltd[2012] QCA 3
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 4039 of 2011 Appeal No 4040 of 2011 Appeal No 4041 of 2011 Appeal No 4042 of 2011 Appeal No 4043 of 2011 SC No 5987 of 2005 SC No 5989 of 2005 SC No 5990 of 2005 SC No 5991 of 2005 SC No 5992 of 2005 SC No 5993 of 2005 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeals – Further Orders |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered on 2 December 2011 Further Orders delivered 3 February 2012 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGES: | Fraser and Chesterman JJA, and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made |
FURTHER ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the appellants succeeded on an appeal – where the appellants’ offers to settle were rejected – where respondents ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the trials and of the appeals to be assessed on the standard basis – whether costs should be awarded to the appellants against the first respondent on an indemnity basis Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 353, r 360(1)(a) Yara Nipro Pty Ltd v Interfert Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 164, cited |
COUNSEL: | No appearance by the appellants, the appellants’ submissions were heard on the papers No appearance by the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Baker O'Brien Toll for the appellants No appearance by the respondents |
[1] FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Chesterman JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.
[2] CHESTERMAN JA: On 2 December 2011 the court gave judgment in these six appeals which were heard together. All appellants were successful and obtained judgments in their favour for the payment of monies to them by the first respondent in sums ranging from $276,701.70 to $364,762.45.
[3] Other orders made against both the respondents are of no present relevance.
[4] The appellants are entitled to an order for their costs against the respondents and no contrary contention was made. However, pursuant to leave given when judgment was delivered, the appellants seek indemnity costs against the first respondent. Their application was made on the basis that they made offers to settle addressed to the first respondent on terms less favourable than the judgments, pursuant to UCPR 353.
[5] On 17 June 2008 five of the appellants by separate written notices in compliance with the rule offered to settle their actions on the basis that the first respondent paid each appellant $59,250 in full satisfaction of the respective claims including costs. Payment was to be made within 21 days. On 20 June 2008 the remaining appellant made a written offer in identical terms. None of the offers was accepted.
[6] Each appellant has obtained a judgment very substantially in excess of the amount for which they offered to settle. The pre-conditions described in UCPR 360(1)(a) are satisfied so that the court must order the first respondent to pay the appellants’ costs on the indemnity basis unless:
(a) The first respondent showed another order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances; or
(b) The court is satisfied the appellants were not at relevant times willing and able to carry out what the offers proposed.
[7] Neither impediment is established on the material. The first respondent has not replied to the appellants’ application for indemnity costs. The offer did not require the appellants to do anything other than to accept receipt of the offered sums, which they were all capable of doing.
[8] There is no apparent reason why the rule should not operate according to its terms. The appellants are therefore entitled to an order that the first respondent pay their costs of and incidental to their actions on the indemnity basis. An order for indemnity costs of an appeal may not be made where, as here, the only basis for seeking it is the operation of UCPR 360 on an offer to settle a trial. See Yara Nipro Pty Ltd v Interfert Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 164 and the cases there referred to.
[9] Accordingly the orders for costs should be that: