Allen v The Queensland Local Government Superannuation Board (No. 2)
[2015] QDC 251
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)
- Allen v The Queensland Local Government Superannuation Board (No. 2)[2015] QDC 251
- Add to List
Allen v The Queensland Local Government Superannuation Board (No. 2)[2015] QDC 251
Allen v The Queensland Local Government Superannuation Board (No. 2)[2015] QDC 251
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Allen v The Queensland Local Government Superannuation Board (No. 2) [2015] QDC 251 |
PARTIES: | LYNDA ALLEN v THE QUEENSLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BOARD (defendant) |
FILE NO/S: | BD 4549/14 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court of Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 8 October 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Dalby |
HEARING DATE: | Plaintiff’s written submissions dated ; defendant’s written submissions dated 1 October 2015 |
JUDGE: | Smith DCJA |
ORDER: | The Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application on the standard basis as agreed or assessed. |
CATCHWORDS: | COSTS - Whether part thereof should be on an indemnity basis Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) rr 681, 702 Allen v The Local Government Superannuation Board [2015] QDC 237 Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service (2004) 140 FCR 101; 210 ALR 220 Calderbank v Calderbank [1973] 3 All ER 333 Switchcorp Pty Ltd v Multimedia Ltd [2005] VSC 425 |
COUNSEL: | Mr P. Bingham for the plaintiff Mr J. Dillon for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Maurice Blackburn for the plaintiff King & Co for the defendant |
Introduction
- [1]
Plaintiff’s submissions
- [2]The plaintiff submits, in this case, that the defendant should pay her costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on a standard basis up until 15 September 2015 but on an indemnity basis from 15 September 2015.
- [3]The plaintiff submits that she repeatedly asked the defendant to disclose the document.[2] The defendant refused to provide disclosure.[3] On 11 September 2015 the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors pursuant to the principles in Calderbank v Calderbank.[4] It is in those circumstances the plaintiff submits for the orders to which I have already referred.
Defendant’s submissions
- [4]The defendant, on the other hand, submits that costs are in the discretion of the court and in all of the circumstances it is appropriate for the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s cost of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
- [5]The defendant submits that, notwithstanding the letter dated 11 September 2015, the circumstances are of such as to warrant departure from the usual rule.[5] The defendant has said that the precise relevance of the advice was not fully articulated by the plaintiff until 7 September 2015. It is further submitted that the waiver issued turned not on the basis of any rule that the disclosure of the gist of the advice amounts to waiver, but whether the disclosure of the document was inconsistent with the maintenance of the confidentiality of the advice, informed by considerations to fairness.
- [6]It is submitted that the position taken by the defendant before the hearing of the application was not misconceived and the arguments involved consideration of matters about which minds might reasonably differ. In addition, it is pointed out that authorities relied on by the plaintiff in correspondence[6] which indeed were not followed in later decisions.
- [7]It was not unreasonable, in all of the circumstances, for the defendant not to accept the Calderbank offer at the time it was made.
Disposition
- [8]Having considered both submissions, it seems to me the position taken by the defendant was reasonably arguable. I agree with the defendant’s submissions that this was a matter about which reasonable minds might differ in light of the extensive authority on the point. It may also be said that issues of fairness and consistency may be viewed differently by opposing parties.
- [9]Further, I agree that the basis of my decision was in effect that the advice was relevant to the decision made as distinct from the mere disclosure of the gist of the advice amounting to waiver.
- [10]In all of those circumstances, in the exercise of my discretion, I have determined to apply the usual rule.
- [11]I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application, on the standard basis, as agreed or assessed.
Footnotes
[1] Allen v The Local Government Superannuation Board [2015] QDC 237.
[2] LJM1 letter dated 17 August 2015, LJM5 letter dated 21 August 2015 and MFW7 letter dated 10 September 2015.
[3] LJM4 letter dated 18 August 2015, LJM6 letter dated 2 September 2015 and MFW6 letter dated 9 September 2015.
[4] [1975] 3 All ER 333.
[5] Rules 681 and 702 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q).
[6] Switchcorp Pty Ltd v Multimedia Ltd [2005] VSC 425 and Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service (2004) 140 FCR 101.