WorkPac Healthcare Pty Ltd v Rovic (No 4)
[2017] QDC 218
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
- WorkPac Healthcare Pty Ltd v Rovic (No 4)[2017] QDC 218
- Add to List
WorkPac Healthcare Pty Ltd v Rovic (No 4)[2017] QDC 218
WorkPac Healthcare Pty Ltd v Rovic (No 4)[2017] QDC 218
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | WorkPac Healthcare Pty Ltd v Rovic & Ors (No 4) [2017] QDC 218 |
PARTIES: | WORKPAC HEALTHCARE PTY LTD (plaintiff) v BRANKA ROVIC (first defendant) and SUPREME NURSING PTY LTD (ACN 616 337 136) (second defendant) and PRINCIPISSA BELLATRICUS PTY LTD (ACN 616 324 451) (third defendant) and ELITE DUCE PTY LTD (ACN 616 234 015) (fourth defendant) |
FILE NO/S: | 5047 of 2016 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court of Queensland |
DELIVERED ON: | 25 August 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers – Plaintiff’s submissions filed 14 July 2017, Defendants’ submissions filed 26 July 2017 |
JUDGE: | Smith DCJA |
ORDER: |
a. In paragraph 1, the word “amended” be inserted before the words “defence and counter-claim”; and b. In paragraph 4, the words “and the amended defence and counter-claim” be inserted after the word “counter-claim”.
|
CATCHWORDS: | COSTS – Whether the defendants should have to pay the costs of the plaintiff with regard to striking out application. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Q) rr 171, 667, 681 Mio Art Limited v Macequest Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2013] QSC 271 |
COUNSEL: | Mr G Handran for the plaintiff Self-represented defendants |
SOLICITORS: | Tucker & Cowen Solicitors for the plaintiff Self-represented defendants |
- [1]This is the costs decision consequent upon the decision given in WorkPac Healthcare Pty Ltd v Rovic & Ors (No 3).[1] Further there is an application by the plaintiff to amend the orders made.
- [2]Turning to the application to amend orders, the orders recorded in the judgment refer to the “defence and counter-claim” but before the return date, the defendants filed an amended defence and counter-claim which persisted with the offending matters. The plaintiff applied orally during the hearing to amend the strike out application to refer to the “amended defence and counter-claim”.
- [3]Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to make the necessary variations to paragraphs 1 and 4 of the order[2].
- [4]Turning to the plaintiff’s submissions, it firstly submits that the costs of the application for security for costs should be reserved. I agree with this and reserve costs of that application.
- [5]In terms of the striking out application, the plaintiff submits that the defendants should pay the plaintiff’s costs, the only real question is whether the costs should be on an indemnity basis. It is submitted that the purpose of r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) is “… that a pleading which engages one of the grounds to strike out a pleading should not proceed to engage the obligations of the opposite party to plead in response and to proceed on trial on the infringing pleading.”[3] It is submitted that UCPR 171(2) provides its own specific power for a court to order indemnity costs. It is submitted that there was no justification for the defence and counter-claim. It was objectionable, overly long and confusing and was not salvageable. Secondly, it is submitted the defendants persisted with the objectionable pleading in face of clear opposition to it and substantial parts of the pleading being unjustifiable. Notice of these defects were given to the defendants of which complaints were ignored.
- [6]The defendants, on the other hand, submit that many of the arguments made by the plaintiff at the hearing of the application had not been raised by the plaintiff before receipt of the plaintiff’s outline of argument. In those circumstances it is submitted that indemnity costs are not appropriate because the plaintiff did not complain of many of the matters that form the basis of the judgment prior to the striking out of the pleadings. It is further submitted that the costs ought not follow the event for that reason. It was submitted the defendants were taken by surprise. In those circumstances it is submitted that the costs of the application should be costs in the cause.
- [7]I have considered all matters and taken into account the submissions by the parties. In my view, costs ought to follow the event here.[4] The next issue is whether the costs should be on an indemnity basis or standard basis. It seems to me on the evidence that many of the matters raised by the plaintiffs were raised in submissions delivered shortly before the hearing.
- [8]In those circumstances I exercise my discretion to order costs be paid on the standard basis.
- [9]My orders will be as follows:
- The order made by Smith DCJA on 14 July 2017 (“the order”) be varied as follows:
- (a)In paragraph 1, the word “amended” be inserted before the words “defence and counter-claim”; and
- (b)In paragraph 4, the words “and the amended defence and counter-claim” be inserted after the word “counter-claim”.
- The defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application filed on 26 May 2017, as agreed or to be assessed on the standard basis (including any of the plaintiff’s costs thrown away as a result of the struck out pleading.)
- I reserve the costs of the security for costs application.
- Liberty to apply on the giving of two (2) days written notice.