Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board (No 2)
[2011] QSC 352
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
- Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board (No 2)[2011] QSC 352
- Add to List
Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board (No 2)[2011] QSC 352
Laing v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board (No 2)[2011] QSC 352
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Originating Application – Further orders |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 23 November 2011 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 27 September 2011 Further written submissions received on 25 October 2011 |
JUDGE: | McMurdo J |
ORDER: | The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings. |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – GENERAL RULE-COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT – COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION – GENERALLY – where the applicant’s application was dismissed – where the respondent sought its costs – whether costs should follow the event |
COUNSEL: | No appearance for the applicant LM Reibelt (sol) for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | No appearance for the applicant Crown Solicitor for the respondent |
[1] On 27 September 2011, I ordered that the application for statutory order of review be dismissed. The respondent’s lawyer sought costs. Because the applicant is a prisoner without legal representation, I requested the respondent’s lawyer to provide him with a submission on costs allowing him time to respond. Those submissions were served on 29 September 2011. No response has been received.
[2] There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. The applicant may not be in a position to satisfy this order but that provides no sufficient reason not to make it. It is ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.