Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Healy v Logan City Council (No 2) QDC 104
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Healy v Logan City Council (No.2)  QDC 104
MICHELLE MARIE HEALY
LOGAN CITY COUNCIL
143 of 16
District Court at Brisbane
3 June 2020
On the papers
The plaintiff pays the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on the standard basis.
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where plaintiff brought a claim primarily in negligence against defendant – where plaintiff’s claim dismissed – where no award of damages made – where parties ordered to make submissions on costs – whether plaintiff should pay defendant’s costs of the proceedings
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 292, s 315, s 316
Self-representation by the plaintiff
W.D.P Campbell for the defendant
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendant
- The substantive judgment and reasons were delivered on 16 April 2020.
- In giving its reasons, orders were made for the filing of a consent order by 30 April 2020 if the parties could reach agreement, and in the absence of agreement, for the filing of submissions as to costs. The orders provided for the plaintiff to file submissions by 7 May 2020, the defendant to file submissions by 14 May 2020 and the plaintiff to file any submissions in reply by 18 May 2020.
- On 30 April 2020, the solicitors for the plaintiff at the hearing, Patinos Personal Lawyers, sent to the solicitors for the defendant, Jensen McConaghy Lawyers, a copy of a Notice of Acting in Person executed by the plaintiff and dated 30 April 2020. The Notice of Acting in Person is date stamped as having been filed in the Brisbane District Court Registry on 8 May 2020.
- On 1 May 2020, the solicitors for the defendant forwarded by email to my Associate a letter attaching a proposed court order including a proposed order as to costs. The letter stated that a copy of the proposed order had been sent to the plaintiff but stated that the plaintiff’s consent to the proposed order had not been formally sought. The proposed order as to costs was an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on the standard basis. The defendant’s solicitors submitted that it was the only order that should be made having regard to the outcome of the matter.
- Since the giving of judgment on 16 April 2020, and contrary to the provisions of the orders made at that time, the plaintiff has not filed any submissions as to costs.
- Given the outcome of the proceedings, it is appropriate that an order be made that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings on the standard basis.
- Accordingly, an order will be made in those terms.
- Published Case Name:
Michelle Marie Healy v Logan City Council (No 2)
- Shortened Case Name:
Healy v Logan City Council (No 2)
 QDC 104
03 Jun 2020