Simpson v Grundy (No 2)
[2011] QSC 329
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
- Simpson v Grundy (No 2)[2011] QSC 329
- Add to List
Simpson v Grundy (No 2)[2011] QSC 329
Simpson v Grundy (No 2)[2011] QSC 329
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Trial | |
PROCEEDING: | Costs Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 November 2011 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATES: | On the Papers |
JUDGE: | Dalton J |
ORDER: | The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on a standard basis to be assessed or agreed. |
COUNSEL: | Mr G Mullins for the plaintiff Mr S C Williams QC with Mr E J Williams for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff Jensen McConaghy for the defendant |
[1] DALTON J: I delivered judgment in this matter on 6 October 2011. I found for the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff had established no breach of duty in a negligence case. The matter wsas one where the factual circumstances contended for by the plaintiff’s side conflicted with those contended for by the defendant’s side. In the end I rejected most of the evidence called by the defendant’s side on credit grounds. I found that the facts were in accordance with the evidence given by the plaintiff’s parents. However on the facts as I found them, no breach of duty was established. I expressed considerable reservations as to the evidence of both the plaintiff and her brother, also on credit grounds. I invited submissions as to costs in these circumstances.
[2] Under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 costs are in the discretion of the Court, “but follow the event, unless the court orders otherwise.” I have regard to the reasoning of the High Court in Oshlack v Richmond River Council[1] as to the purpose of, “the usual order as to costs.” I also have regard to cases such as Kitching & Anor v Queensland Commissioner of Police[2] as to the difficulties attending making costs orders as to severable issues.
[3] In this case I made credit findings against witnesses on both sides of the record. It seems to me that even had the defendant’s side contended for a factual version of events in line with that which I have found to be correct, the plaintiff would nonetheless have continued with her action and the defendant would have incurred the costs of defending it. There is nothing from which I could conclude that there would have been significantly less trial time, or significantly less interlocutory cost in the proceeding. I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on a standard basis to be assessed or agreed.