Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2016] QDC 30
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
- Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (No 2)[2016] QDC 30
- Add to List
Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (No 2)[2016] QDC 30
Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (No 2)[2016] QDC 30
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Woolnough v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd (ABN: 361 316 593 84) t/as Macrossan and Amiet (No 2) [2016] QDC 30 |
PARTIES: | TIMOTHY EARL WOOLNOUGH (appellant) v MACROSSAN AND AMIET PTY LTD (ABN: 361 316 593 84) TRADING AS MACROSSAN AND AMIET (first respondent) and GENE PATTERSON (second respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | D104/15 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING | Appeal |
COURT: | Magistrates Court at Mackay |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 February 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
JUDGE: | Smith DCJA |
ORDER: | The appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed on the standard basis |
CATCHWORDS: | COSTS – whether should follow the event Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) r 681 |
COUNSEL: | Self-represented appellant Solicitors for the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Self-represented appellant Macrossan and Amiet for the respondents |
- [1]This is the costs decision with respect to the judgment given on 18 February 2016.[1]
- [2]The respondents submit that costs ought follow the event. It is submitted there was no basis for the joinder of the second respondent and further the appeal did not raise any important question of law or justice.
- [3]The appellant on the other hand in submissions says that he should not have been billed as he went to Macrossan and Amiet on behalf of Christopher Muller. He also says that threats have been made to his wife concerning the auction of the house. He repeats his arguments that his evidence has not been presented. He says there has been a miscarriage of justice. In essence the appellant repeated matters which have already been the subject of decision.
Determination
- [4]It is my determination that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs. The appellant did not seek leave to appeal; no important question of law or justice was raised and the appeal was struck out.
- [5]The usual rule is that costs follow the event.[2] There is no reason to depart from it. I note the respondents did not seek indemnity costs.
- [6]My order is that the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.