Shafston Nursing Pty Ltd v Queensland Nursing Council
[2008] QSC 73
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
- Shafston Nursing Pty Ltd v Queensland Nursing Council[2008] QSC 73
- Add to List
Shafston Nursing Pty Ltd v Queensland Nursing Council[2008] QSC 73
Shafston Nursing Pty Ltd v Queensland Nursing Council[2008] QSC 73
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 18 April 2008 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | N/A |
JUDGE: | McMurdo J |
ORDER: | Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, to be assessed on the standard basis. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – No justification for departure from the general rule in this case r 689(1), Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) |
COUNSEL: | Mr S Keim SC with Mr A Musgrave for the applicant Mr P J Davis SC with Mr G Beacham for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | DLA Phillips Fox for the applicant Rodgers Barnes & Green for the respondent |
[1] McMURDO J: On 12 March 2008 I gave judgment dismissing the application for review. The parties have since provided written submissions as to costs with which this judgment deals.
[2] The respondent seeks its costs on the standard basis, submitting that there is no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event: r 689(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The applicant submits that each party should bear its own costs.
[3] There are four matters relied upon by the applicant. First, it was successful in establishing that the respondent failed to provide natural justice to the graduates. The second is that, so it is now contended, it was established that the conditions imposed by the respondent upon graduates "were, to a limited extent, ultra vires". That mis-states the effect of the judgment, because I did not determine that any condition was invalid. I saw some substance in the argument that one of the conditions was invalid but found it unnecessary to decide the point[1]. Third, the respondent's application in reliance upon ss 12 and 13 was not made promptly. The fourth is that the proceedings were brought for the benefit of graduates.
[4] That last submission is less persuasive for the fact that applicant failed to inform graduates of what the Council was proposing by way of limited enrolment[2]. Graduates were able to bring their own proceedings as two of them did. One of the defects in these proceedings was in their potential to adversely affect some graduates without their concurrence. As to the suggested lateness in the respondent's cross-application, this made no difference to the course of the proceedings. Overall, I am not persuaded that there is any basis for departing from the ordinary rule and the applicant will be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis.