Robinson v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (No 2)
[2017] QDC 58
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
- Robinson v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (No 2)[2017] QDC 58
- Add to List
Robinson v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (No 2)[2017] QDC 58
Robinson v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (No 2)[2017] QDC 58
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Robinson & Anor v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (No 2) [2017] QDC 58 |
PARTIES: | SCOTT ROBERT ROBINSON and MICHELLE ROBINSON v WESTPAC LIFE INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED |
FILE NO/S: | 2633/2011 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 March 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | Written submissions by the plaintiff dated 8 March 2017 Written submission by the defendant dated 1 March 2017 |
JUDGE: | Smith DCJA |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | COSTS – Whether should follow the event – whether a proportion should be paid |
COUNSEL: | Mr M. Alexander for the plaintiff Mr K. Holyoak for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the plaintiff Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers for the defendant |
- [1]This is the costs decision as a result of the decision given in Robinson & Anor v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited.[1]
- [2]The plaintiffs submit that they be ordered to pay 25 percent of the defendant’s costs on the standard basis or alternatively the costs be reserved. It is submitted that in this matter the defendant had some success but the plaintiff also had some success. It is submitted that the plaintiff was arguably more successful than the defendant and that an interlocutory costs order will prejudice the parties’ ability to resolve a matter.
- [3]The defendant, on the other hand, submits that the appropriate order is that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application filed on 16 December 2016 on the standard basis and the plaintiff pay 50 percent of the defendant’s costs of the cross-application filed 12 January 2017 on the standard basis. It is submitted that the plaintiffs were wholly unsuccessful with respect to their application and should have to pay the costs. It is further submitted that the defendant succeeded in striking out eight individual allegations in the plaintiffs’ pleadings but did not succeed in relation to three. In those circumstances, it is submitted that the cost orders proposed by the defendant are reasonable.
Disposition
- [4]Rule 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides:
General rule about costs
- (1)Costs of a proceeding, including an application in a proceeding, are in the discretion of the court but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise.
- (2)Subrule (1) applies unless these rules provide otherwise.
- [5]Further, r 684 provides:
Costs of question or part of proceeding
- (1)The court may make an order for costs in relation to a particular question in, or a particular part of, a proceeding.
- (2)For subrule (1), the court may declare what percentage of the costs of the proceeding is attributable to the question or part of the proceeding to which the order relates.
- [6]It is to be noted that r 682(1)(b) provides that the costs a court may order “must be decided in accordance with this chapter”. Rules 681 and 684 appear in the same chapter as r 682.
- [7]The usual rule is that cost of a proceeding follow the event. Generally, a successful party is entitled to an award of costs in its favour.[2]
- [8]
- “1.Ordinarily, costs follow the event and a successful litigant receives his costs in the absence of special circumstances justifying some other order.
- 2.Where a litigant has succeeded only upon a portion of his claim, the circumstances may make it reasonable that he bear the expense of litigating that portion upon which he has failed.
- 3.A successful party who has failed on certain issues may not only be deprived of the costs of those issues but may be ordered as well to pay the other party’s costs of them. In this sense, ‘issue’ does not mean a precise issue in the technical pleading sense but any disputed question of fact or of law.”
- [9]In my view, whilst the plaintiffs did pursue to an extent the issue concerning the certificate of readiness for trial it was a minor matter. It was only in response to that application that the defendant’s application was filed. It is appropriate to make no order as to costs concerning that application.
- [10]It is my judgment that there was mixed success on the part of the defendant concerning its application filed 12 January 2017. The defendant won some points but, on the other hand, the plaintiffs won some points. Ultimately though the plaintiffs have been required to re-plead.
- [11]It is my view that the plaintiffs should pay 50% of the costs of that application on the standard basis.
- [12]In conclusion, my orders are as follows:
- I make no order as to the costs concerning the application filed on 16 December 2016.
- I order the plaintiffs pay the defendant 50% of the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the application filed on 12 January 2017 as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.