MNM Developments Pty. Ltd. v Gerrard
[2005] QDC 340
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
- MNM Developments Pty. Ltd. v Gerrard[2005] QDC 340
- Add to List
MNM Developments Pty. Ltd. v Gerrard[2005] QDC 340
MNM Developments Pty. Ltd. v Gerrard[2005] QDC 340
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QDC 340 |
PARTIES: | MNM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 103 948 509) Applicant and WILLIAM ALAN GERRARAD Respondent |
FILE NO: | 404/2004 |
PROCEEDING: | Costs application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court, Southport |
DELIVERED ON: | 4 November 2005 |
DELIVERED AT: | Southport |
HEARING DATES: | Written submissions dated 12 and 13 September 2005 |
JUDGE: | Newton DCJ |
ORDER: | Costs of and incidental to the application are to be the parties’ costs in the proceedings |
COUNSEL: | Mr P Hackett – applicant Mr L Jurth – respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Schultz Toomey O'Brien– applicant Short Punch & Greatorix – respondent |
- [1]The applicant (plaintiff) sought summary judgment of its claim by application filed on 22 December 2004. The application was dismissed and written submissions in relation to costs were duly provided pursuant to paragraph 19 of the judgment delivered on 4 February 2005.
- [2]Costs of a proceeding, including an application in a proceeding, are in the discretion of the Court but follow the event, unless the Court considers another order more appropriate (UCPR R 689(1)). The defendant was wholly successful in resisting the application and in normal circumstances it may be expected that an order for costs in favour of the defendant would be made.
- [3]However, the matter is complicated by the fact that the Court of Appeal rejected the basis upon which the decision in favour of the defendant had been made although the appeal was dismissed because in the Court’s view, the relevant factual situation had not been established clearly by the evidence, or addressed. Accordingly, the Court held that summary judgment could not have been, and could not, on appeal, be entered. (MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] QCA 230 at [9] and [22] per de Jersey CJ).
- [4]I accept that in these circumstances the resolution of the factual dispute between the parties at trial or otherwise, ought to determine the respective entitlement to costs. Accordingly, I order that the costs of and incidental to the application filed on 22 December 2004 should be the parties’ costs in the cause.