Orr v Director of Proceedings, Health Ombudsman [No 2]
[2024] QCA 106
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)
- Orr v Director of Proceedings, Health Ombudsman [No 2][2024] QCA 106
- Add to List
Orr v Director of Proceedings, Health Ombudsman [No 2][2024] QCA 106
Orr v Director of Proceedings, Health Ombudsman [No 2][2024] QCA 106
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Orr v Director of Proceedings on Behalf of the Health Ombudsman [No 2] [2024] QCA 106 |
PARTIES: | ANDREW JAMIE ORR (appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 3891 of 2023 QCAT No 222 of 2019 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Order |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – [2023] QCAT 61 (Judicial Member Reid) |
DELIVERED ON: | 4 June 2024 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 21 February 2024 |
JUDGES: | Mullins P and Bond JA and Fraser AJA |
ORDER: | The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the appellant was wholly unsuccessful in his appeal – where the appellant submits on various bases that judicial discretion should be exercised in ordering that the each party should bear their own costs – whether there was any unlawful conduct, novel point of law of public importance, issue of significance, or unfairness that would justify an order that each party bear their own costs Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681 Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25, cited Orr v Director of Proceedings on Behalf of the Health Ombudsman [2024] QCA 67, cited Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39, cited Villan v The Body Corporate for The Winston (Cairns) Community Title Scheme 37263 [No 2] [2024] QCA 54, cited |
COUNSEL: | B K Nolan for the appellant C D Templeton for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Alex Rashidi Lawyers for the appellant Turks Legal for the respondent |
- [1]THE COURT: The parties have exchanged submissions about costs pursuant to leave granted by the Court: Orr v Director of Proceedings on Behalf of the Health Ombudsman [2024] QCA 67. The appellant submits that the appropriate order is that each party should bear their own costs of the appeal. The respondent submits that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
- [2]Under Rule 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the costs of the appeal are in the discretion of the Court but follow the event unless the Court orders otherwise. As the appellant submits, the discretion must be exercised judicially and consistently with the purpose of the power, but costs will generally follow the event unless there are special or exceptional circumstances which warrant depriving a successful party of its costs: see Courtney v Chalfen [2021] QCA 25; Speets Investment Pty Ltd v Bencol Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] QCA 39 and Villan v The Body Corporate for The Winston (Cairns) Community Title Scheme 37263 [No 2] [2024] QCA 54.
- [3]The appellant, who was wholly unsuccessful in his appeal, relies upon five submissions as justification for the costs order he seeks. One of the appellant’s submissions depends upon his contentions that there was “unlawful conduct informing the appeal” and the appeal was “a legitimate attempt by the appellant to hold the respondent accountable for such conduct”. There has been no finding that there was any unlawful conduct.
- [4]The appellant submits that the judgment determined the construction of an important statutory provision and resolved a novel point of law of public importance. It is submitted that the outcome upon that issue “qualified the success of the appellant on his appeal and pertained to public rights and obligations, rather than his individual private rights”. Upon the face of the proceedings, however, the appeal was pursued to advance the personal interest of the appellant in defeating, or perhaps delaying, the resolution of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant referred by the respondent to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
- [5]The appellant submits that the appeal raised an issue of significance about the administration of disciplinary actions against health professionals. That does not justify a departure from the usual order that costs followed the event. The appellant also relies upon the fact that in the Tribunal the usual order is that each party bears that party’s own costs (Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 100). If that fact has any present relevance at all, it is not a circumstance which warrants depriving the successful respondent of costs.
- [6]Finally, the appellant submits that for the reasons articulated in the submissions already discussed, an order for costs against the appellant would work an unfairness which is inconsistent with the compensatory principle upon which costs are ordered. Why that might be so is not explained. In any event, the rejection of the other submissions inevitably requires the rejection of this submission.
- [7]The appropriate order is that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.