Mules v Ferguson
[2015] QCA 233
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 - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Mules v Ferguson[2015] QCA 233
- Add to List
Mules v Ferguson[2015] QCA 233
Mules v Ferguson[2015] QCA 233
CITATION: | Mules v Ferguson [2015] QCA 233 |
PARTIES: | NANCY LEANNE MULES |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 3754 of 2014 SC No 339 of 2011 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Orders |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Cairns – [2014] QSC 51 |
DELIVERED ON: | 17 November 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Heard on the papers |
JUDGES: | Margaret McMurdo P and Applegarth and Boddice JJ Judgment of the Court |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS – where the appellant was successful on appeal – where the appellant sought an order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the action on an indemnity basis, and the appellant’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis – where the respondent did not make any submissions as to costs – where the plaintiff made a formal offer to settle under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for a sum significantly less than the judgment sum – whether the respondent ought to pay the appellant’s costs of the action on an indemnity basis, and the appellant’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 354, r 360 |
COUNSEL: | No appearance by the appellant, the appellant’s submissions were heard on the papers No appearance by the respondent, the respondent’s submissions were heard on the papers |
SOLICITORS: | Shine Lawyers for the appellant K & L Gates for the respondent |
[1] THE COURT: On 6 February 2015, this Court ordered that the appellant’s appeal be allowed, that the judgment and orders entered below be set aside and that judgment be entered for the appellant in the amount of damages assessed by the trial judge together with interest thereon. The parties were given leave to make submissions as to costs.
[2] On 12 February 2015, the appellant filed written submissions, contending that the appropriate costs orders were that the respondent/defendant pay the appellant/plaintiff’s costs of the action, to be assessed on an indemnity basis and the appellant’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis. On 17 February 2015, the respondent advised the Registrar that she would not be making any submissions as to costs.
[3] As a consequence of the orders of this Court, the appellant succeeded both at trial and on appeal. As such, the appellant is entitled to her costs of the proceeding and of the appeal. The only issue is whether it is appropriate to order that the costs of the proceeding be assessed on an indemnity basis.
[4] On 1 November 2013, the plaintiff made a formal offer to settle under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) for a sum significantly less than the judgment sum. Whilst that offer to settle was made during the course of the trial, and towards the conclusion of the trial, that fact does not prevent the offer from being an offer which invokes the provisions of rule 360 of the UCPR.[1]
[5] Rule 360 of the UCPR provides:-
“(1)If -
(a)the plaintiff makes an offer that is not accepted by the defendant and the plaintiff obtains an order no less favourable than the offer; and
(b)the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was at all material times willing and able to carry out what was proposed in the offer;
the court must order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs calculated on the indemnity basis unless the defendant shows another order for costs is appropriate in the circumstances.
(2)If the plaintiff makes more than 1 offer satisfying subrule (1), the first of those offers is taken to be the only offer for this rule.”
[6] The respondent did not accept the appellant’s formal offer on 1 November 2013, and the appellant obtained a judgment no less favourable than that offer to settle. There is no basis to conclude other than that the appellant was at all material times willing and able to carry out what was proposed in that offer.
[7] The formal offer to settle satisfies the requirements of rule 360 of the UCPR. The Court is to order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs on an indemnity basis unless the respondent shows another order for costs is appropriate in the circumstances. The respondent has not shown another order for costs is appropriate.
[8] We would order:
1.The respondent/defendant pay the appellant/plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
2.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
Footnotes
[1] UCPR r 354.