Clampett v Hales
[2013] QCA 31
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)
- Clampett v Hales[2013] QCA 31
- Add to List
Clampett v Hales[2013] QCA 31
Clampett v Hales[2013] QCA 31
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 1 March 2013 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGES: | Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Boddice J |
ORDER: | Applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, to be assessed on a standard basis. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the applicant was refused leave to appeal – where the first respondent seeks costs on an indemnity basis – where the first respondent submits the application for leave to appeal was without merit and doomed to fail – where the court was not satisfied the applicant brought the application for an improper purpose – whether costs should be awarded and on what basis Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225; [1993] FCA 536, applied |
COUNSEL: | No appearance by the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant represents himself |
[1] THE COURT: The first respondent makes application for his costs of responding to the applicant’s application for leave to appeal filed on 18 July 2012, which was refused by order dated 1 February 2013. The first respondent submits those costs ought to be assessed on an indemnity basis as the application for leave to appeal was without merit, and doomed to fail.
[2] The applicant’s application related to a decision in proceedings which were civil in nature. As such, there is no reason why the first respondent should be denied an order for costs. However, an order for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis is generally only made where the conduct of those proceedings by the applicant is properly to be considered as conduct sufficiently reprehensible to warrant the making of an indemnity costs order.[1]
[3] Whilst the applicant’s application for leave was doomed to fail as his application did not enliven the jurisdiction of the Judicial Review Act 1991, the Court is not satisfied the applicant brought the application for leave to appeal for an improper purpose, or that his conduct of those proceedings amounted to conduct sufficient to warrant an indemnity costs order. The Court declines, in the exercise of its discretion, to order that costs be assessed on an indemnity basis.
[4] The Court orders that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal, to be assessed on a standard basis.
Footnotes
[1] Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 202; Johnston & Anor v Herrod & Ors [2012] QCA 361.