Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd (No 22)
[2019] QLC 47
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
- Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd (No 22)[2019] QLC 47
- Add to List
Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd (No 22)[2019] QLC 47
Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd (No 22)[2019] QLC 47
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 22) [2019] QLC 47 |
PARTIES: | Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd (ACN 063 763 002) (applicant) v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 098 876 825) QCT Resources Pty Ltd (ACN 010 808 705) BHP Coal Pty Ltd (ACN 010 595 721) QCT Mining Pty Ltd (ACN 010 487 840) Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd (ACN 009 779 873) QCT Investment Pty Ltd (ACN 010 487 831) Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd (ACN 000 767 386) (respondents) |
FILE NO: | MRA1332-08 |
DIVISION: | General division |
PROCEEDING: | Application for costs |
DELIVERED ON: | 12 December 2019 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARD ON: | Submissions closed 22 November 2019 |
HEARD AT: | Heard on the papers |
PRESIDENT: | FY Kingham |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where the parties disagree as to costs of an application for leave, where the Court found that leave was not required – where the Court found that costs should follow the event Land Court Act 2000 s 34 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 378 Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 8) [2017] QLC 7, cited Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 9) [2017] QLC 12, followed Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 21) [2019] QLC 41, cited |
APPEARANCES: | Not applicable |
- [1]The parties do not agree about costs orders on the application by the respondents (BMA) for leave, if required, to amend their defence. On 8 November 2019, I published reasons for finding BMA did not require leave, but that, if leave were required, I would grant it.[1]
- [2]The Court has discretion to order costs in a proceeding, as it considers appropriate. If the Court makes no other order, each party must bear their own costs.[2]
- [3]The Court’s discretion to order costs is unfettered “except to the extent it is confined by the subject matter and the scope and purpose of the legislation.”[3] The Court has recognised and applied the general rule that costs follow the event in cases involving commercial disputes such as this one.[4]
- [4]BMA seeks an order that Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd pay its costs, because it was entirely successful in its application.
- [5]Cherwell Creek seeks an order that the costs of the application be costs in the proceeding, because BMA sought the indulgence of the Court and Cherwell Creek’s resistance to the application was reasonable.
- [6]The effect of making that order would be that the successful party in the proceedings would have their costs of this application. I am not satisfied that is a fair and just order.
- [7]BMA succeeded on its primary case that leave was not required. That outcome is consistent with a finding I made in an earlier interlocutory decision,[5] that the directions that then applied to this case had not ousted the operation of r 378 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. In my recent decision, I found the circumstances were not materially different from the earlier application.[6]
- [8]As the directions stood at the time of this application,[7] it was open to BMA to file and serve the amended pleading without leave. It should have its costs of the application.
FY KINGHAM
PRESIDENT OF THE LAND COURT
Footnotes
[1]Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 21) [2019] QLC 41.
[2]Land Court Act 2000 s 34(2).
[3]Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 9) [2017] QLC 12, [2].
[4] Ibid [2]-[6].
[5]Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 8) [2017] QLC 7.
[6]Cherwell Creek Coal Pty Ltd v BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (No 21) [2019] QLC 41, [4].
[7]On 15 November 2019, after consultation with the parties, I made orders that will prevent the parties filing any further amended pleadings, except to the extent provided in those directions, or with the leave of the Court.