Worchild v Brooks
[2005] QDC 406
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
- Worchild v Brooks[2005] QDC 406
- Add to List
Worchild v Brooks[2005] QDC 406
Worchild v Brooks[2005] QDC 406
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Worchild v Brooks [2005] QDC 406 |
PARTIES: | ANDREW WORCHILD Applicant v RAYMOND SYDNEY BROOKS Respondent |
FILE NO: | 400/2005 |
PROCEEDING: | Application to appeal Magistrates Court decision |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Southport |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 December 2005 |
DELIVERED AT: | Southport |
HEARING DATE: | 26 September 2005 |
JUDGE: | Dearden DCJ |
ORDER: | The application for leave to appeal is refused |
CATCHWORDS: | APPLICATION TO APPEAL MagistrateS Court DECISION – Appeal from interlocutory decision – Costs Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – r. 171; r. 190; r. 225; r.292 Atkinson v Atkinson [1969] VR 278 Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia (1981) 147 CLR 247 Ex parte Britt [1987] 1 Qd R 221 Fire & All Risks Insurance Co Ltd v Rousianos [1989] 5 ANZ Ins Cas 75.821 Lauchlan v Hartley [1979] Qd R 305 |
COUNSEL: | Mr Worchild appeared on his own behalf C Wiltshire for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Jones King Lawyers for the respondent |
- [1]The applicant, Andrew Worchild, seeks leave to appeal against the decision of Magistrate Costanzo, delivered in the Southport Magistrates Court on 8 July 2005, which ordered the respondent, Raymond Brooks, to serve a copy of the respondent’s List of Documents and a copy of each document on the applicant within seven working days of the making of the order, and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs, to be agreed or assessed.
- [2]The learned Magistrate’s decision, which runs to some 11 typed pages, relates to an application by Mr Worchild seeking (in the alternative):
- (1)Judgment for Mr Worchild with damages to be assessed pursuant to UCPR r 292;
- (2)Striking out of Mr Brooks’ reply to Mr Worchild’s counterclaim pursuant to UCPR r 171;
- (3)Judgment for Mr Worchild with damages to be assessed and/or that Mr Brooks’ reply to Mr Worchild’s counterclaim of Mr Brooks be struck out pursuant to UCPR r 190;
- (4)Judgment for Mr Worchild with damages to be assessed and/or that the reply of Mr Brooks to Mr Worchild’s counterclaim be struck out pursuant to UCPR r 225.
- [3]In respect of each of the grounds of Mr Worchild’s application, the learned Magistrate came to careful, well-reasoned and justifiable conclusions. The proceedings appealed from in the Magistrates Court were interlocutory proceedings. Because the Magistrates Court proceedings were interlocutory, the appeal can only proceed by leave[1]. No doubt, were it not for the delay occasioned by this appeal, the matter may well have progressed by now to a trial in the Magistrates Court on the merits of the substantive issues.
- [4]It is not apparent that the learned Magistrate has acted on any incorrect principle[2] or in any other way wrongly exercised his discretion[3]. I am of the opinion that there are no special or compelling circumstances requiring the intervention of the District Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, in respect of the learned Magistrate’s interlocutory decision. On the contrary, I am left with the clear impression that the application by Mr Worchild in the Magistrates Court, and this appeal to the District Court, are no more than delaying tactics by which Mr Worchild is seeking to avoid a Magistrates Court trial in respect of the substantive issues in a timely manner.
- [5]The decision of the learned Magistrate in respect of costs was not only appropriate, but, given his conclusions in respect of each of the grounds of Mr Worchild’s application, inevitable. The discretion to award costs against Mr Worchild was exercised judicially and I am completely unpersuaded that it was exercised wrongly[4].
- [6]In light of the conclusions I have reached, I can see no basis on which Mr Worchild should be granted leave to appeal, and accordingly, the application is refused.
- [7]I will hear the parties on the issue of costs.